JUSTICE AND LOVE IN CONTEMPORARY DIALOGUE
OUTLINE
I. Philosophical
Context
II. Historical
Influence
III. Contemporary Scholars
A. Max Stackhouse
B. Larry Rasmussen
C. Ronald H. Stone
D. James Deotis Roberts
E. Feminist Theologians
VI. Conclusion
V. End Notes
VI. Bibliography
JUSTICE AND LOVE IN CONTEMPORARY DIALOGUE
Philosophical Context
Mirroring their counterparts throughout the centuries, contemporary theologians have invested a great deal of time and ink in their attempt to definitively quantify the proper relationship between love and justice based on a biblical perspective. However, while the distinctive priority of both virtues has been clear in the Christian ethical tradition, a single monolithic consensus has never been reached. While decrying that justice and love should be univocal in its meaning to all people, scholars generally define their scope to endorse a particular ideological agenda. Opposing viewpoints postulate a wide spectrum of theological interpretations and employ an extensive semantic range to substantiate their position, since participants in the debate understand that whoever controls the definitions of the culture’s language also determines its values and social hierarchy. History has proved this maxim is equally true for both the secular world and the Church.
Based on the burgeoning volume of manuscripts, a diverse group united under the umbrella label of liberation theologians has attempted the most vigorous contemporary reflection of love and justice. This vein of theology primary focuses on the perceived Christian responsibility to effect economic and social justice for all persons. Thus, the “Christian thought and life are to be socially engaged, committed to those forms of systemic change necessary for the greater actualization of social justice.”[1]
Historical Influence
Despite an anthology of complex ethical issues unknown to preceding generations, resulting mostly from technological advancements in a variety of scientific disciplines, contemporary thought is indebted to a long list of previous intellectual pursuits. Arguably, patterns of influence could be traced to a plethora of sources; yet, much of modern Christian ideology has been refined by the extensive contributions of many prominent theologians throughout the 20th century including Lewis Smedes, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, H. Richard Niebuhr, John Howard Yoder, Emil Brunner, Paul Ramsey, and James Luther Adams. However, a host of prominent 21st century Christian thinkers have paid special homage to the triumvirate group consisting of Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, and Walter Rauschenbusch. Collectively, the triune countered the often-prevalent mindset espousing the incompatibility of love and justice as congruent ideals. Though a sharp distinction was generally postulated between the two concepts of love and justice, these scholars emphasized the necessary dependence to each other. Love was the quintessential ideal, incorporating the principles of justice within its scope.
Reinhold Niebuhr, in an essay published in Christianity and Society (summer 1950), explicitly stated the final law of the Christian faith “in which all other law is fulfilled is the law of love,” immediately followed by the corollary, “this law does not abrogate the laws of justice, except as love rises above justice to exceed its demands.”[2] Tillich, through an ontological examination, proposed a similar paradigm. His classical definition of love as "the drive toward the unity of the separated" established it as the ultimate principle, while justice was designed to preserve what love unites.[3] Rauschenbusch, considered the leading expositor of the social gospel in the early 20th century, believed “the fundamental virtue in the ethics of Jesus was love, because love is the society-making quality,” positioning justice as the mechanism that ensured the viability of the community.[4]
Realizing the multidimensional nature of love and justice, many current scholars advocating various liberation themes have taken the ideals of Niebuhr, et al., and extrapolated them into a new Christian credenda. A number of prominent theologians, such as Max Stackhouse, Larry Rasmussen, Ronald H. Stone, and James Deotis Roberts have extensively addressed the interface between love and justice on a variety of topics in their prolific writings.
Contemporary Scholars
Max Stackhouse, the Stephen Colwell Professor of Christian Ethics at Princeton Theological Seminary, is one of the most recognized protégés of Niebuhr. Specifically focusing on the ideology of Niebuhr and Rauschenbusch in his doctoral dissertation, entitled "Eschatology and Ethical Method in W. Rauschenbusch and R. Niebuhr," Stackhouse has subsequently attempted to perpetuate the ideals of his mentors through his literary contributions and teaching at the seminarian and graduate level.[5] Stackhouse, however, credits Tillich, who taught him at Harvard, as the most prominent influence in renewing his Christian faith after an intellectual plunge into atheism.[6]
Through many of his writings, including Covenants and Commitments: Faith, Family, and Economic Life (Westminister John Knox Press, 1998), Stackhouse strongly advocated the interrelationship of love and justice within the covenantal context. Articulating his views in a lecture given at Union Theological Seminary (September, 2000), Stackhouse said, “We are called by God to be defenders of the right and active instruments of the good, co-creative covenant partners with God enacting, in love, the righteous principles, and, in hope, the promises of God as agents of justice.”[7] Further, this ideal pressed the need for dealing with love and justice as more than theoretical abstractions without practical operational feasibility. Thus, Stackhouse established justice as an objective qualitative ethic that is enumerated in specific terms.
Focusing much of his energies on developing a Christian ethos that addresses globalization, Stackhouse maintains the important function of justice to have the dual role of both liberating the disenfranchised and providing a legal structure that will maintain a “covenantal community of ordered discipline.”[8] The covenant serves as the instrument that mediates the relationship between the Lord and His people, whereas justice as codified in the law specifies the order required for that relationship to be meaningful. Through these precepts, Stackhouse diffused the presupposed tension between love and justice by refusing to present them as competing attributes.
One of the most prominent social ethicists is Larry Rasmussen. Recently retiring from the faculty of Union Theological Seminary as the Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics, he has done considerable research on Niebuhr’s theology including his service as editor for Reinhold Niebuhr: Theologian of Public Life (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1991); even honoring Niebuhr “as the single most influential social ethicist of the twentieth century.”[9] Rasmussen also argues that Rauschenbusch’s social mandate is as pertinent today as it was a century ago, quoting him often to substantiate the claim.[10]
Rasmussen has
parlayed much of his scholarship into the field of environmental ethics under
the auspices of sustainability and stewardship. Championing the idea of
“ecocentrism,” love and justice are defined within the context of a covenantal
community in service to God’s entire creation, which is inclusive of the
totality of both human and nonhuman entities in the physical realm. As he
provides a descriptive analysis of the moral claims upon the community in
relation to its environment, he addresses the legitimacy of the moral hierarchy
constructed between humanity and nature. Battling what he views as fallacious
dualisms, Rasmussen underscores the inherent kinship mankind has with all other
creatures in an attempt to establish a moral vision that goes beyond the widely
accepted anthropocentrism, which elevates human needs and volition above all
other concerns. He contends that all organisms should be treated as “neighbors,”
equally deserving of love and justice as their human counterparts. In an
earlier contribution, Rasmussen even extended the principle of neighbor love to
inorganic nature.[11]
Thus, the ethic of love enables justice to serve in a redemptive capacity for
all of creation by providing deliverance from “whatever oppresses or
victimizes.”[12]
An esteemed
participant in the love/justice dialogue in the arena of political activism is
Ronald H. Stone. Serving as the John Witherspoon Professor of Christian Ethics
at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary until 2004, he collaborated extensively with
the ideas of Niebuhr, Tillich, and Rauschenbusch.[13]
Additionally, Stone was Niebuhr’s last graduate assistant.
Extending the
principles of Christian Realism promoted by Niebuhr and Tillich into
contemporary concerns of public morality, Stone articulates love as the
foundational ethic: “Christian ethics for the church starts with Jesus’ own
ethic of love of God and of neighbor. The rest is commentary.”[14] Justice, then, is the public reflection of
love as it addresses the community’s issues of economic disparities, political
corruption, and discrimination. Stone infuses his concept of justice into an
ethical critique of American foreign policy and international conflict
resolution.[15]
James
Deotis Roberts
James Deotis Roberts, one of the most vocal liberation writers during the last quarter of the twentieth century, served on the faculty of several universities including his role as Research Professor of Christian Theology at the Duke University Divinity School. Credited along with James Cone in the establishment of black theology as a recognized academic discipline, he consistently echoed the philosophy of Niebuhr and Tillich in his articulation of the mutuality between love and justice. “Without justice, love is sentimental and anemic, and without love, justice is harsh and merciless.”[16] However, the relationship was not one of equal prominence. Concurring with his mentors, Roberts relegated justice to a supporting role of love. “On the level of human experience when the struggles of life must be engaged, there is abundant evidence that justice serves the purpose of love and that love exalts justice to a higher level.”[17]
Roberts interprets the black faith experience within the context of a hierarchy of racist oppression. Christ is emulated as a liberator, who came to effect God’s will to free the oppressed from bondage. Thus, the incarnation provided the activist example that all succeeding generations of believers were to replicate. According to Roberts, the mutuality of justice and love, which are grounded in ‘lovingly just’ nature, find their greatest expression through the engagement in the liberation struggle for social transformation. However, unlike many of his contemporaries, Roberts focuses on liberation as a means of reconciliation instead of trying to institute a black faith experience separate from the community as a whole. Through this liberation, Roberts envisions an ethnic socio-economic equality that will strive to mend the brokenness of all races. Thus, his egalitarian approach attempts to administer a homologous definition of love and justice for all constituents within the community.
Despite negative images of angry women destroying the church due to the media hype of its radical wing, feminist theology has made a significant contribution to the dialogue concerning the nature of love and justice in its attempt for intellectual recognition. Due to this tenacious scholarship, an adequate section must be devoted to its development and application. Thus, instead of just one emissary, a cacophony of representation is needed to present an accurate synopsis of the love/justice debate for the feminist position.
While the feminist movement is not homogeneous in its vocal dissonance concerning a host of issues, feminism is generally engaged in reconstructing human society to reflect women’s equality with men.[18] Its Christian constituents focus their attention on women’s full incorporation into the people of God and the ecclesial structure of the Church. Though mostly vilifying Niebuhr and Tillich’s Christian Realism as a patriarchal theological ethic, contemporary feminist theologians have wrestled with its presuppositions and constructs; often returning to its precepts, such as in The Bonds of Freedom: Feminist Theology and Christian Realism (Oxford University Press, 2001) by Rebekah Miles, Associate Professor of Ethics at Perkins School of Theology. Additionally, the feminist perspective endears to Rauschenbusch’s concept of human solidarity. Many of the leading voices, such as Rosemary Radford Ruether, Rita Nakashima Brock, Rebecca Ann Parker, and Mary Daly were deeply inspired by Rauschenbusch’s Kingdom of God theme and its social mandate.
Based on the dogma that women reflect the image of God in their humanity as fully as men do, the meanings of love and justice coalesce around the themes of human dignity and liberation. In this context, love is the call for right ordered relationships within the community and justice is the action to eradicate the barriers that impede those relationships. Thus, instead of a co-equal relation between love and justice, feminist theology postulates a sequential dynamic that places love as a fulfillment of justice. Articulated through the liberation motif, justice redresses gender stereotypes, which are cast as the primary culprit of the oppression women experienced through a variety of contingent historical realities. Serene Jones, Titus Street Professor of Theology at Yale Divinity School, clarifies why gender is a judicial issue:
Gender is distinguished from the term sex, which refers to the physiological difference between man and woman. In contrast to sex, gender refers to culturally constructed systems of meaning that identify various things—persons, ideas, gods, institutions, and so on—according to the binary categories of “women/men” or “feminine/masculine.”[19]
These classifications foster expectations of conduct that support and sustain prejudicial stereotypes, consequently creating a socially mandated patriarchal hierarchy. Through this androcentric framework, which often permits—sometimes even enforces—conventions of dominance, women have encountered a litany of discriminatory and exploitative abuses. Fran Porter elaborates, “In its worst form, a socially constructed gender hierarchy hosts the idea of women’s weakness of character, which is reflected in their being given the onus of responsibility for humanity’s alienation from God.”[20] Thus, feminist theology endows justice with the mission of reforming all of the cultural icons and perceptions contributing to the denigration of women’s dignity that prevents her from being a complete and wholesome member of the community.
Significant attention has focused on the traditional reductionism equating female identity with her biological appearance or function. Eulogized for their beauty, compassionate natures, and nurturing capacity as mothers, women are often stereotyped as followers instead of leaders. Christian feminists, thus, strenuously claim societal roles and communal value are assigned by gender distinctions that are mandated by social convention rather than biblical revelation.[21] Yet, many denominations, including the Southern Baptists, have officially endorsed the subordinate station of women and their exclusion from prominent positions of leadership. Feminists portray this stigma as a form of insidious communal bondage intent on keeping women “in their place.”[22] Justice is consequently identified with the concept of liberation that frees its captives by destroying the male mediated power structure.
The theological category of love is interfaced with the championing of justice through the biblical concept of koinonia. The Greek word for fellowship, feminist exegesis highlights koinonia through the divine Trinitarian context, where each personality is distinct, yet mutually inseparable in a bond of loving unity. Thus, love is equated to the metaphor of connectedness, which according to British theologian Mary Grey has become “central for the women’s movement and for Christian feminist spirituality.”[23] Consequently, justice embodies love as a work of restoration that attempts to establish a community of equals while allowing women a full expression of their individuality. This is especially relevant in terms of legal protections that are not based on strict equality, but rather highlight the unique female experience such as maternity leave. The relational nexus established through koinonia engenders the mutuality of love and justice by explicitly rejecting biological determinism as the rationale for assigning specific cultural roles that inhibit women’s healthy self-determination.[24] Love, therefore, is symbolized by the solidarity and inclusiveness secured through the process of justice.
Conclusion
It is apparent that many contemporary scholars concentrating on a wide spectrum of ethical domains have concluded that love and justice flourish best in a complementary, rather than competitive, relational context. However, justice is usually situated within the framework of love. Justice is viewed as an expressive dimension of love, often depicted as ‘tough love.’ As Lewis Smedes clarifies, “the law of love is therefore the law of life.”[25] Thus, love is the ultimate ethic that employs a judicial nature to ensure every man and woman has equal access and opportunity to participate in all of the resources the community offers, inclusive of its economic, social, spiritual, and governmental facets.
END NOTES
[1]Max Stackhouse. “Rauschenbusch Today: The Legacy of a Loving
Prophet.” (Christian Century, Jan 25 1989), 77.
2D.B. Robinson, ed. Love and Justice: Selections from the Shorter Writings of Reinhold Niebuhr. Reprint. (Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press, 1992), 25.
3Paul Tillich. Love, Power, and Justice: Ontological Analyses and Ethical Applications. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954), 25.
4Walter Rauschenbusch. Christianity and the Social Crisis. Reprint. (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 67.
5Niebuhr and
Rauschenbusch’s great influence on Stackhouse is seen through such works
as, “Rauschenbusch Today:
The Legacy of a Loving Prophet.” (Christian Century,
Jan 25 1989); Public Theology and Political Economy. Reprint (University Press of America, 1991);
and “The Fifth Social Gospel and the
Global Mission of the Church.” The Social Gospel Today. (Westminister
John Knox Press, 2001). Stackhouse also was the editor of 1999 reprint edition
of Rauschenbusch’s The Righteousness of the Kingdom. (Edwin Mellon
Press, 1999).
6Max L. Stackhouse. “What Tillich Meant to Me.” (Christian Century, January 31,1990), 102.
7Max L.
Stackhouse “Covenantal Justice in a
Global Era.” Public lecture given at Union Theological Seminary Sept. 2000.
(Transcript by Institute of Reformed Theology http://www.ptsem.edu/Academics/departments/RS/Docs/Max%20Article/IRT.pdf), 4.
8Max Stackhouse. “Reaffirmations of Foundations for an Ecumenical Ethic.” (Journal of Ecumenical Studies Fall 1978), 662-683.
9Larry Rasmussen. “On Niebuhr: A Theological Study.” Book Review. (Theology Today, April 2002), 132.
10Examples such as “Global Ecojustice: The Church’s Mission in Urban Society.” (Mission Studies, 16 no 1 1999). and Moral Fragments & Moral Community: A Proposal for Church in Society. (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1993).
11Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, ed. Tending the Garden: Essays on the Gospel and the Earth. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 199.
12Rasmussen, Larry. Earth Community, Earth Ethics. (Maryknoll, N.Y.:Orbis Books, 1996), 256.
13Noted works
include Professor Reinhold Niebuhr: A Mentor to
the Twentieth Century. (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 1992) and Paul Tillich's Radical Social Thought.
(Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1986). He also served as editor
for a collection of twelve Tillich essays entitled Theology of Peace.
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990) and for the manuscript “Walter
Rauschenbusch in Historical perspective.” by Reinhold Niebuhr in Faith and
Politics: A Commentary on Religious, Social and Political Thought in a
Technological Age. (N.Y.: George Braziller, 1968), 33-45.
14Ronald H.
Stone. The Ultimate Imperative: An Interpretation
of Christian Ethics. (Cleveland: Pilgrim
Press, 1999), ix.
15Stone has been deeply impacted by Niebuhr and Tillich’s Christian Realism as seen through his book, Christian Realism & Peacemaking: Issues in U.S. Foreign Policy (Abingdon Press, 1988). His earlier book, Reinhold Niebuhr: Prophet to Politicians (Abingdon Press, 1972) also highlighted Niebuhr’s influence on his political ethics.
16James Deotis
Roberts. “Reconciliation with Justice.” Perspectives in Religious Studies.(Winter 2002), 406.
17Ibid.
18Susan Rakoczy. In Her Name: Women Doing Theology. (Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: Cluster Publications, 2004), 11.
19Serene Jones. Feminist Theory and Christian Theology. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2000), 8.
20Fran Porter. It Will Not Be Taken Away from Her: Feminist Engagement With Women’s Christian Experience. (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2004), 57.
21Jones, 8.
22Rakoczy, 386.
23Ellen Clark-King. Theology By Heart: Women, the Church, and God. (Peterborough: Epworth Press, 2004), 91.
24Anne Clifford. Introducing Feminist Theology. (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 17.
25Lewis Smedes. Mere Morality. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 59.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clark-King, Ellen. Theology
By Heart: Women, the Church, and God. Peterborough: Epworth Press, 2004.
Clifford, Anne. Introducing Feminist Theology. New York: Orbis Books, 2001.
Granberg-Michaelson, Wesley ed. Tending the Garden: Essays on the Gospel and the Earth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Jones, Serene. Feminist
Theory and Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2000.
Porter, Fran. It Will
Not Be Taken Away from Her: Feminist Engagement With Women’s Christian
Experience. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2004.
Rakoczy, Susan. In
Her Name: Women Doing Theology. Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: Cluster
Publications, 2004.
Rasmussen, Larry. Earth
Community, Earth Ethics. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1996.
Rasmussen, Larry. “On Niebuhr: A Theological Study.” Book Review. Theology Today. April 2002, 132-133.
Rauschenbusch, Walter, Christianity
and the Social Crisis. Reprint. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964.
Roberts, J. Deotis.
“Reconciliation With Justice.” Perspectives in Religious Studies. Winter
2002: 401-409.
Robinson, D. B. ed. Love
and Justice: Selections from the Shorter Writings of Reinhold Niebuhr.
Reprint. Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press, 1992.
Smedes, Lewis. Mere
Morality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.
Stackhouse, Max.
“Covenantal Justice in a Global Era.” Public lecture given at Union Theological
Seminary Sept. 2000. Transcript by Institute of Reformed Theology <http://www.ptsem.edu/Academics/departments/RS/Docs/Max%20Article/IRT.pdf> accessed
12/20/05,1-15.
Stackhouse, Max.
“Rauschenbusch Today: The Legacy of a Loving Prophet.” Christian Century,
Jan 25 1989: 75-78.
Stackhouse, Max.
“Reaffirmations of Foundations for an Ecumenical Ethic.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies Fall 1978: 662-683.
Stackhouse, Max. “What
Tillich Meant to Me.” Christian Century, Jan 31 1990: 99-102.
Stone, Ronald H. The
Ultimate Imperative: An Interpretation of Christian Ethics. Cleveland:
Pilgrim Press, 1999.
Tillich,
Paul. Love, Power, and Justice: Ontological Analyses and Ethical
Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954.
© 2006 Lawrence Davis
[1]Max Stackhouse. “Rauschenbusch Today: The Legacy of a Loving
Prophet.” (Christian Century, Jan 25 1989), 77.
[2]D.B. Robinson, ed. Love and Justice: Selections from the Shorter Writings of Reinhold Niebuhr. Reprint. (Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press, 1992), 25.
[3]Paul Tillich. Love, Power, and Justice: Ontological Analyses and Ethical Applications. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954), 25.
[4]Walter Rauschenbusch. Christianity and the
Social Crisis. Reprint. (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 67.
[5]Niebuhr and
Rauschenbusch’s great influence on Stackhouse is seen through such works
as, “Rauschenbusch Today:
The Legacy of a Loving Prophet.” (Christian Century,
Jan 25 1989); Public Theology and Political Economy. Reprint (University Press of America, 1991);
and “The Fifth Social Gospel and the
Global Mission of the Church.” The Social Gospel Today. (Westminister
John Knox Press, 2001). Stackhouse also was the editor of 1999 reprint edition
of Rauschenbusch’s The Righteousness of the Kingdom. (Edwin Mellon
Press, 1999).
[6]Max L. Stackhouse. “What Tillich Meant to Me.” (Christian Century, January 31,1990), 102.
[7]Max L.
Stackhouse “Covenantal Justice in a
Global Era.” Public lecture given at Union Theological Seminary Sept. 2000.
(Transcript by Institute of Reformed Theology http://www.ptsem.edu/Academics/departments/RS/Docs/Max%20Article/IRT.pdf), 4.
[8]Max Stackhouse. “Reaffirmations of Foundations for an Ecumenical Ethic.” (Journal of Ecumenical Studies Fall 1978), 662-683.
[9]Larry Rasmussen. “On Niebuhr: A Theological Study.” Book Review. (Theology Today, April 2002), 132.
[10]Examples such as “Global Ecojustice: The Church’s Mission in Urban Society.” (Mission Studies, 16 no 1 1999). and Moral Fragments & Moral Community: A Proposal for Church in Society. (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1993).
[11]Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, ed. Tending the Garden: Essays on the Gospel and the Earth. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 199.
[12]Rasmussen, Larry. Earth Community, Earth Ethics. (Maryknoll, N.Y.:Orbis Books, 1996), 256.
[13]Noted works
include Professor Reinhold Niebuhr: A Mentor to
the Twentieth Century. (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 1992) and Paul Tillich's Radical Social Thought.
(Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1986). He also served as editor
for a collection of twelve Tillich essays entitled Theology of Peace.
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990) and for the manuscript “Walter
Rauschenbusch in Historical perspective.” by Reinhold Niebuhr in Faith and
Politics: A Commentary on Religious, Social and Political Thought in a
Technological Age. (N.Y.: George Braziller, 1968), 33-45.
[14]Ronald H.
Stone. The Ultimate Imperative: An Interpretation
of Christian Ethics. (Cleveland: Pilgrim
Press, 1999), ix.
[15]Stone has been deeply impacted by Niebuhr and Tillich’s Christian Realism as seen through his book, Christian Realism & Peacemaking: Issues in U.S. Foreign Policy (Abingdon Press, 1988). His earlier book, Reinhold Niebuhr: Prophet to Politicians (Abingdon Press, 1972) also highlighted Niebuhr’s influence on his political ethics.
[16]James Deotis
Roberts. “Reconciliation with Justice.” Perspectives in Religious Studies.(Winter 2002), 406.
[17]Ibid.
[18]Susan Rakoczy. In Her Name: Women Doing Theology. (Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: Cluster Publications, 2004), 11.
[19]Serene Jones. Feminist Theory and Christian Theology. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2000), 8.
[20]Fran Porter. It Will Not Be Taken Away from Her: Feminist Engagement With Women’s Christian Experience. (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2004), 57.
[21]Jones, 8.
[22]Rakoczy, 386.
[23]Ellen Clark-King. Theology By Heart: Women, the Church, and God. (Peterborough: Epworth Press, 2004), 91.
[24]Anne Clifford. Introducing Feminist Theology. (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 17.
[25]Lewis Smedes. Mere Morality. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 59.