Our Differences and Our Theology

by Kris Anne Swartley

Last year, as part of myrequirements for a seminary class on gender and leadership, I wasassigned to read Carol Gilligan’s book In a Different Voice.¹In that book she highlights the differences in the moral developmentof men and women, from childhood through midlife. I immediatelybegan to wonder if, just as there are differences in the way men andwomen process questions of morality, there may be differences in theway we approach and process theology.

It is Gilligan’s beliefthat a heavy male bias in psychological research has neglected fullconsideration of the female point of view (Gilligan 1982, p. 5). Studies on psychological and moral development have been conductedand analyzed largely by men, using male development as the model;while the personal formation of women has been considered anaberration of the male norm, instead of a unique journey unto itself.Gilligan believes this has crippled the field of psychology in itseffort to help people.

She begins her book bydescribing the various psychological models that have been developedand used over the years to describe the successful personaldevelopment of an individual over their lifespan. She also describeshow women repeatedly seem to fail in following the properdevelopmental steps from dependence to autonomy. However, Gilligancontends that this does not show an innate weakness or failure ofwomen, but rather a failure in the models themselves:

"When the focus onindividuation and individual achievement extends into adulthood andmaturity is equated with personal autonomy, concern withrelationships appears as a weakness of women rather than as a humanstrength… [But] the discovery now being celebrated by men inmid-life of the importance of intimacy, relationships, and care issomething that women have known from the beginning" (p. 17).

The differences between themoral development of men and women which surfaced in Gilligan’sresearch are striking. She found that boys tend to constructelaborate systems of rules when they play games together, to avoidconflict and ensure justice; whereas girls were more likely to stopplaying a game altogether and choose another activity if there wasconflict (p. 10).

In a different study, elevenyear old boys and girls were presented with a moral dilemma, in whicha husband could not pay for a drug that would save his wife’s life.The boys tended to approach the problem with logic and math. "Hesets it up as an equation and proceeds to work out the solution"(p. 26). The girls, on the other hand, perceived it as a circle ofrelationships. "[The girl] envisions the wife’s continuing needfor her husband and the husband’s continuing concern for his wife,and also seeks to respond to the druggist’s need in a way thatwould sustain rather than sever connection" (p. 28).

Without going into furtherdetail, and there is much in Gilligan’s work worth considering, Iwould like to take her observations and suggest that perhaps similardifferences could be noted in the way men and women approachtheology. Is it possible that men approach theology in a linear way,using logic, defining right and wrong categorically; while womenapproach theology relationally? It is not my intention to suggestthat one approach is better than the other, or that one is wrong andthe other is right. I seek simply to call attention to thepossibility that men and women do theology from different points ofview, and if it is true that we do, to ask the question: What doesthat mean for the Church? Could God’s justice be defined not onlyin terms of mathematical law-keeping, but also in terms of caringrelationships, so that God’s great act of redemption in Jesus isnot only about erasing our wrong-doing but also about maintaininglove and connection in the universe? Is holiness exclusively definedby moral and ethical perfection, or could it also be defined bypurity of love toward the other?

In Genesis 1, the image ofGod is said to be revealed in male and female, existing together. Perhaps the image of God is reflected more completely when men andwomen do the task of theology together, rather than separately. I ampainting in broad strokes, only scratching the surface of theseissues; but it is an important area to explore. How does ourdiversity add strength and beauty to Christian theology? What do wemiss when we exclude women or men from doing theology alongside us?It is my belief that we should acknowledge and embrace ourdifferences and allow those differences to enhance our thinking aboutGod’s character and actions.

1Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theoryand Women’s Development. Cambridge, Massachusetts: HarvardUniversity Press.