## Thoughts on methodology:

Any anxiety that "feminizing/de-masculinizing" the Trinity will lead to unbalanced theologies or some perilous emasculation of men is *only* an *emphatically ancillary* problem. The *primary* difficultly inherent in "feminizing" the Trinity as a reaction to rampant—even perverse—masculinization is *first and foremost* that it risks *buttressing* traditional stereotypes and mysogynies that exist within a given patriarchy in its very attempt to *tear them down*. Any given person fueled by the former I think finds it very difficult not to fall into this error.

Additionally, approaches that seek to depersonalize[^1] or desex[^2] the Trinity seem only to circumvent the real issue of chauvanism or exclusity inherent to tradition masculine formulations. The question that remains is, can a theological approach like this (whether in thought or practice) address the underlying issues inherent to patriarchal modes of thought?[^3] Maybe it is enough to simply avoid it?

We should *not* begin with the question—for example—"how can we feminize/de-masculinize the Godhead in a way that achieves a more egalitarian formulation of gender roles," *or even* "how can we rid the God head of dangerously influential gender connotations altogether" *but rather* "how can we develop our understanding of *gender as a social construction* in a way that supports the aims we understand tacitly while accurately dialoging with the heart and soul of the Godhead." Both of these distinct realms of thought—i.e. gender sociology/philosophy and Trinitarian theology—bear substantially on our subject so they must be considered *dialectically*. Any consideration (no matter how thoughtful) that attempts to infer *from one* to *the other* will be unsuccessful at both.[^4]

## Final thoughts/questions about each authors conclusion/suggested solution:

Oxford-Carpenter's suggested solution is to utilize "masculine, feminine, non-sexual and depersonalized" metaphors for God all the same in order to develop a more nuanced and circumspect view of the Godhead. A comprehensive and broad approach can promote helpful dialogical interaction with the Godhead and with community. However its worth asking: are symbolism and metaphor sufficient forms of *theology*? Even if they are fruitful forms of *liturgy*? And does a wholesale acceptance of an assortment of different approaches potentially sidestep the underlying issues of a pervasive and oppressive patriarchal system?

Johnson's conclusion is compelling and well developed. Her attention to methodology, and survey of a variety of approaches has many moments of deep insight. In the context of a patriarchal theological and liturgical tradition, she suggests focus on feminist God-language as a subversive social tool that fundamentally invites women back into a real communion with God, the Trinity and Church. She puts strong emphasis on "God-symbol"[^5] and the three-point formulation that she uses to emphasize the fundamental indequacy of God-language is very compelling and helpful.[^6] For me, it seems a very distinct line of thought in which feminist Trinitarian thought can function. The concern she notesin her conclusion as to whether " *the symbol of God functions"* raises for me the question: is God a symbol? Is his function a didactic icon? How far does symbolism get us? Is that far enough?[^7] Williams suggests seeing the Trinity using the family analogy—the Son being feminized and the Spirit being seen as impersonal. *Prima facie*, this feels a little tortured and insufficient to me. He admits that at least in image it threatens to reinforce the gender roles that it's trying to help, but he claims that a strong view of perichoresis helps to offset the subordinationist implications of the family analogy. As an illustration, his argument seems to be that "if we had a proper egalitarian view of marriage, than the family analogy can also be sufficient." This seems to underestimate the seriousnes of the influence of patriarchal tendencies as it would be near impossible to reason an egalitarian view of gender with this process.[^8] One additional note: having written nearly 20 years ago, Williams appears to accept some premises that were likely borderline controversial then, but would be nearly impossible to just gloss over nowadays. For example: "People do have characteristics of both sexes, but as all do have a definite orientation, perhaps so should the persons of the Trinity." Loughlin's work centers on that of Balthasar—fundamentally, he seeks to show that Balthasar's concept of gender as "two poles of a differentiated unity" is insufficient that is expressed likewise by his Trinitarian account.[^9] Furthermore, Loughlin suggests that Balthasar's explicit focus on a dipolar genderization can actually be understood as an androginization of the Godhead.[^10] He focuses on the trouble Balthasar has circumventing a very gendered form of (what is not antiquated) biological presuppositions. The discussion is fruitful and Balthasar's views unique despite my lack of familiarity with these particular works to comment on Loughlin's conclusions about them. This is to say that one general conclusion he comes to is that we are always caught off-guard by our prevailing cultural memes and tendency as they relate to gender and even within the natural sciences.[^11] One of Louglin's final suggestions is that if religion could attempt to utilize a homosexual framing of the Godhead, it would help to solve the underlying duality (which he attributes to biologistic influence) in gender. The desired outcome of this is on the right track, even if the premise isn't necessarily the only scenario that could push us to consider gender and the God head more appropriately (and in less dualistic terms).[^12]

## Miscellany and other thoughts/questions:

Does a masculinized Godhead inspire patriarchalism *necessarily*? Or *accidentally*? The question can be asked of Mary Daly's phrase—"if God is male, then male is God." This might be of no consequence, but a question worth asking.[^13] Is the masculinization of the Trinity directly correlated with the patriachalization of societies? Are there examples of other societies outside of the Western canon where predominant matriachal trends support more androgynous views of the Godhead? How come patriachal influences explicitly *masculinize* the Godhead, while *matriachal* influences can only go so far as to *androgynize* (rather than *feminize*) the Godhead?[^14] Is the masculinization of the Trinity a fundamental aspect of the patriachal influence of the Western canon on the world?[^15] Oxford-Carpenter pretty strongly suggests that the "total masculinization" of the Godhead happened in the second century as a result of political and cultural changes. While she absolutely cites changes inside and outside of the church, the statement still inspires a deeper understanding of patriachalism in the first century church alongside the patriachalism of Roman and Jewish culture.[^16] The suggestion that the gender of the word for the "Spirit" should or does infer one gender or the other ( הור, πνεῦ µ α, spiritas) seems a moot point (sometimes it comes across as sophomoric). What does it mean then that "God" is consistently masculine in gendered languages? It seems that only someone whose native tongue doesn't use this type of gendered grammar would reason along these lines.[^17]

[^1]: cf. Rebecca Oxford-Carpenter, “Gender and Trinity,” *Theology Today*, 22-23.

[^2]: cf. Oxford-Carpenter, 21-22

[^3]: cf. David T. Williams, “Gender in the Trinity,” *Journal of Theology for South Africa* (2000): 53. Here he seems to point to the additional fact that attempts to depersonalize the Trinity tend toward Sabellianism/Modalism because it functionalizes God.

[^4]: Oxford-Carpenter, 16: "The revived Goddess religion not only cold oppress men if the Goddess were the sole of ascendant deity, but the religion could also oppress women due to its stereotyping of feminine qualities." cf. Williams, 53: " It is in fact of little real value to feminism if the Spirit is feminine. It puts one feminine in the Trinity where there is still a masculine majority. Is this not really tokenism?" cf. Johnson, 15: I believe the "two patterns of thought" that she lays out concerning how people approach feminizing God essentially parallel this as well—the second pattern of thought uses a "a strongly dualistic anthropology" by relying on a complementarian understanding of genders. She does not say directly, but it can be assumed that she favors the first methodology which she calls "an egalitarian anthropology of partnership."

[^5]: Elizabeth Johnson, “Naming God She: The Theological Implications,” Boardman Lecture in Christian Ethics, University of Pennsylvania (2000), 13.

[^6]: Ibid., 6-7.

[^7]: Ibid., 18.

[^8]: Williams, 58-59.

[^9]: G. Loughlin, “Sexing the Trinity,” *New Blackfriars* 79 (January 1998): 20.

[^10]: Ibid., 24.

[^11]: Ibid., 25.

[^12]: Ibid.

[^13]: Oxford-Carpenter, 10. Johnson, 1.

[^14]: Oxford-Carpenter, 8-9

[^15]: Oxford-Carpenter, 9 "Christianity is one of only three major world religions (the others being Islam and Judaism) without a feminine deity of some kind?"

[^16]: Oxford-Carpenter, 8, 10

[^17]: Oxford-Carpenter, 11, 18. Williams, 51: "In particular, no weight should be placed on what is most likely an arbitrary linguistic phenomenon."