Spirit, Voices, And Bodies Feminist Pentecostal Theologies Taking Shape

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Pneuma 35 (2013) 5-7

Introduction

Spirit, Voices, and Bodies: Feminist Pentecostal Theologies Taking Shape*

Lisa P. Stephenson Lee University, P.O. Box 3450, Cleveland TN 37320

A product of second-wave feminism, academic feminist theology is decades old. Since the 1960s Protestant and Roman Catholic feminist scholars alike have been raising their voices to articulate other ways to embody the Christian faith.1 Evangelical feminism can also be dated back to the 1970s with the publi- cation of All We Were Meant to Be.2 And yet, despite the countless articles, essays, and books on feminist theology, the advent of feminist Pentecostal the- ologies has been relatively absent.

The reasons for this void are certainly varied. One factor is undoubtedly the effect of local churches, a factor that should not be underestimated. Feminism has been vilified from some Pentecostal pulpits, and this, in turn, has created suspicion and fear among many parishioners. This negative influence has likely stemmed the tide for some who would have otherwise enjoyed wading in the

* Inevitably, one must decide what terms to use to describe this form of Pentecostal theology. Some find the word feminist to be exclusionary and have created their own substitution that is representative of the particular women’s experiences they are drawing upon (e.g., womanist, mujerista), or preface “feminist” with another adjective (e.g., African feminist, Asian feminist, Indian feminist). Rather than string together a number of descriptors, however — which runs the possibility of leaving a given perspective out — I have opted to stick with “feminist” but have pluralized “theology” to represent the diverse views and experiences represented by this label.

1 For a thoroughgoing history on the emergence of feminist theology see Rosemary Radford Ruether, “The Emergence of Christian Feminist Theology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Femi- nist Theology, ed. Susan Frank Parsons (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 3-22. 2 Letha Dawson Scanzoni and Nancy A. Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be: Biblical Feminism for Today,3d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1992). For a comprehensive history on evan- gelical feminism see Pamela D. H. Cochran, Evangelical Feminism: A History (New York: New York University Press, 2005).

1

6

L. P. Stephenson / Pneuma 35 (2013) 5-7

waters. Another factor is the lack of Pentecostal women who have pursued areas of biblical, theological, or religious studies within higher education. Without Pentecostal women to think and write, feminist Pentecostal theolo- gies inevitably will not exist. A final factor is that constructive Pentecostal the- ology itself has only recently begun to emerge, and thus the absence of constructive feminist Pentecostal theologies is not altogether surprising. In fact, perhaps fortuitously, because constructive Pentecostal theology is rela- tively young the influence of feminist Pentecostal theologies has the potential to greatly shape the discipline. Regardless of the reasons why feminist Pente- costal theologies have lagged behind other forms of feminist theology, times are changing.

This theme issue originates from an American Academy of Religion session that took place in San Francisco, California, in November 2011, in which the authors in this issue presented papers on emerging feminisms within global Pentecostalism. In the first article, Pamela Holmes engages the works of Margaret Kamitsuka and Kwok Pui-lan in order to put feminist Pentecostal scholars on alert to the propensity of universalizing Pentecostal women’s expe- rience (especially North American, Caucasian, Pentecostal women’s experi- ence). With the warning served, Holmes then points a way forward through the means of “strategic essentialism.” This methodology provides an approach by which feminist Pentecostals who have access to power and privilege can still use the concept of “women’s experience” without abusing it.

In the second article, Yolanda Pierce gives voice to a womanist Pentecostal perspective, noting its historical roots within Pentecostalism and its potential contribution to the study of Pentecostalism today. She demonstrates how tak- ing seriously the claims and premises of womanist theology not only builds upon commonalities shared between womanist theology and Pentecostal the- ology, but also grounds theology in the lives of everyday women and is atten- tive to issues of racism, classism, and sexism. Pierce points to a womanist Pentecostal approach as a way to rouse Pentecostals from their slumber — or indifference — and point them toward the intersection of Pentecostalism with historical and theological injustices.

The third article, my own contribution, focuses on the topic of theological anthropology and how a feminist pneumatological method might change the contours of traditional approaches. Whereas the imago Dei and imago Christi are the two religious symbols that have served as the primary means of assert- ing human value and worth, I argue that a feminist Pentecostal anthropology should rework these two symbols from a pneumatological perspective and provide a third approach that allows pneumatology to stand on its own. I also

2

L. P. Stephenson / Pneuma 35 (2013) 5-7

7

demonstrate how this feminist Pentecostal anthropology would be beneficial to Pentecostal women worldwide.

Finally, in the fourth article, Janice Rees turns to the issue of women’s sub- jectivity, utilizing the work of Andrea Hollingsworth and bringing in other interlocutors to expand the conversation in further directions. Rees focuses on the issue of subjectivity and how feminist Pentecostal theology — particularly conclusions drawn from the experiences of Pentecostal women in non-Western contexts — poses challenges to gender studies and systematic theology. Rees puts Hollingsworth’s work into dialogue with that of Kevin Vanhoozer to dem- onstrate how feminist Pentecostal theology illuminates typical systematic theology. Rees also draws upon the work of Rowan Williams to point toward the ultimate telos of subjectivity, where the same Spirit that contributes to the emergence of one’s subjectivity also leads to the transgression of it when the Spirit pulls one into the life of the Godhead.

These articles do not offer an apology for combining feminism and Pente- costalism, but rather demonstrate the natural and fruitful connections between the two. Yet, it is not just about grafting feminist theories, categories, and ideas into Pentecostalism. A true conversation implies a dialogue, not a monologue. Pentecostals have their own feminist tongues that need to be heard and inter- preted within the broader academy, rather than merely to be understood as an internal exchange. Feminist Pentecostal theologies certainly have something to contribute to their own faith community, but they also have the power to do so beyond those borders. One would be amiss, however, to assume that aca- demic feminist theology is the only goal and aim of feminist Pentecostal the- ologies. On the contrary, feminist Pentecostal theologies are lacking if they do not affect the people in the pews who surround us every week as we worship. This theme issue is neither the first word on the subject, nor will it be the last. It is, rather, an invitation to other voices and bodies to join in the dis- course, so that a true Pentecost may be realized.

3