Rule 4? Gender Difference and the Nature of Doctrine
Any attempt to talk about God today must accept the challenge of feminist theology. This article examines some aspects of the feminist critique of traditional christology and suggests a possible response in terms of “rule 4”. That is, reflecting on George lindbeck's claim that there are three r...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
1997
|
| In: |
Pacifica
Year: 1997, Volume: 10, Issue: 2, Pages: 173-186 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | Any attempt to talk about God today must accept the challenge of feminist theology. This article examines some aspects of the feminist critique of traditional christology and suggests a possible response in terms of “rule 4”. That is, reflecting on George lindbeck's claim that there are three regulative principles at work in the shaping of the classic doctrines of the incarnation and the trinity, the author suggests that feminist theology has brought to light a fourth rule: only those things may be claimed as theologically essential in the interpretation of Christ as could equally well be claimed for an imaginative Christa. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1839-2598 |
| Reference: | Errata "Correction — Letter to the Editor (1997)"
|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Pacifica
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/1030570X9701000205 |