The Augusta Pulcheria, accustomed to receiving communion in the sanctuary of the cathedral, was shocked when the newly appointed Patriarch, Nestorius, forbade her entry to receive as she normally did. It was Easter and the doors in front of the sanctuary were shut in front of her. What did this new upstart think he was doing? Who did he think he was to say that she, the sister of the Emperor and a major benefactor of the church, was forbidden entry to the sanctuary?

Nestorius wanted his notions of piety to be enforced. Just like in the temple, he believed that the sanctuary was to be only for clergy and men of rank like the emperor. Pulcheria thought too highly of herself. She had given gifts to the church, but many of them were not proper for a church to have. Why did she think her own robe should be used as an altar cloth? Why was her image put up for all to see? She should know her place. He thought the authority given to him by God was to be used to make sure the church was purified. All heretics were to be denounced. All those who were acting out of fashion would be corrected.

Pulcheria was not one to be trifled with. Instead of just going back and obeying the patriarch, she gave a response which she believed was backed by tradition: “Why? Haven’t I given birth to God?” Pulcheria, at this point a dedicated virgin, saw a link between herself and Christ’s mother. If a woman, if Mary, could give birth to God, why could women not enter the sanctuary? Pulcheria’s acclamation was to point to Mary, the Theotokos, the Birth-Giver of God, and to show that God had elevated women through her. If God elevated women, who was Nestorius to act as he did?

This was a foundation for one of the early doctrinal debate in Christian history. Nestorius rejected the term Theotokos, believing it was heresy to say God had been given birth by a woman. It is difficult to know whether or not he would have been so insistent on this point if he did not face the practical ramifications of the term in the person of Pulcheria. But the Augusta had made the point and a contest of wills ensued. Pulcheria was to have Nestorius’s teachings condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431 CE).

Christian theology, however strange the debates might be for outsiders, often developed out of the practices of the people. Here we see the vindication of the dignity of women as being a reason for and an end product of a doctrinal debate. The promotion of women in the church faced a great challenge, and if the Nestorian contention had succeeded, could have found itself lost in history. Pulcheria spoke of herself in the place of Mary, and through Mary, as everywoman. Jesus was born of a woman, and so motherhood was dignified and blessed by God. Because Mary was believed to be both virgin and mother, God not only blessed motherhood, raising the feminine principle, God also raised and dignified women who wanted to live in the world free from the burdens of marriage. One did not have to be married to be dignified, though marriage and motherhood had to be understood as goods one could accept. In the ancient world, where women often were dependent upon others for status, this was something new. The virgins, those who planned to live apart from marriage, needed help and were given it from fellow Christians. But that demonstrates how Christianity freed women from the burdens society had placed upon them.

For any humanistic enterprise to be promoted, the human condition must be accepted. This means gender is important. A rejection of the uniqueness of the masculine or the feminine is a rejection of what it means to be human. Nestorius would have turned Christianity way from its humanistic background. We see, in the present age, a similar denial by “radical feminists” who fear or hate motherhood. If we do not appreciate the gift of motherhood, how can we continue to exist? Can we really say we are respecting humanity when we deny the good of motherhood? Are we not telling women to hate themselves? How is that good? Let us, like Pulcheria, point to the universal feminine and say, “Who is to deny this?” If one is to promote women, the answer cannot be “me.”

Thomas Jefferson, although he did not consider himself anywhere near a traditional Christian in his beliefs, held a high regard for Jesus’ moral teachings.  He knew that the teachings of Christ influenced the development of political thought in the West. Indeed, he understood their importance in his own promotion of universal human rights. Even though he failed to live out the full ramifications of his ideals, it is clear that he helped promote the tradition, found in Christ’s teachings, which established the dignity of the human person.

This dignity is a fundamental position behind New Feminist teachings. We are called to respect each other’s dignity, to recognize the concrete reality of each human person and to recognize the voice this gives to them. Men and women must be willing to listen to each other, to help each other, to work together with equal dignity, even if their experiences in the world will differ as a result of their genders. We must respect those differences, because they help establish who we are, but they must not be used to diminish or devalue the value we give to anyone.  

Christians have had this presented to them not only in their Scriptures, but in the way early Christians helped create significant social changes in the Roman world. Sadly, the respect Christians are to give has not always been lived as they should. Cultural influences sometimes got the best of them, turning them away from what Christ and the early Apostles taught them.

This is especially true in regards to the treatment Christians gave to women.  We see in history the recognition of the value and dignity of women, especially the value of their intuition and ideas, waxing and waning through the centuries. Yet it is hard to deny, however much Christians failed to follow their principles, they were there for them to reflect upon, and this means those principles helped shape and influence world history for the better.  One doesn’t have to be a Christian to learn from them. Indeed, it is often non-Christians like Mahatma Gandhi who, in examining these principles, often help promote them in the world and call the Christian to task for their failure to meet the expectations of the Gospel.

As Owen Chadwick in The Early Church pointed out, Christianity had great success with women because of the way they were treated by the early Christians. Women who had no voice in society found their voice affirmed. Jesus chose women to be the first ones to proclaim his resurrection from the dead. Mary Magdalene is said to the “Apostle to the Apostles” because she was sent to the Apostles and declared to them his resurrection to them, giving her voice a priority over that of men in a society which ordinarily ignored the testimony of women.

Married women found security in the Christian faith because of the way men were told to treat them: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25 RSV). Christianity was seen as radical because it went against the social conventions of the day as it promoted the dignity of everyone. One’s race, gender, and condition in society were relativized because of everyone’s equality in Christ: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus”  (Gal. 3:28 RSV). Social conventions were lost. One must not read Paul’s words to the Galatians as rejecting the concrete person. Rather, they were no longer the ultimate representation of the value of the person. This principle was and is a necessary precondition for any society in which the dignity of the human person is neglected. And this is what Christianity offered to Western history.

New Feminism can be, and is, often followed by people of the Christian faith because they see support for the principles of New Feminism coming from their own faith tradition. They can see how, in history, these principles have actually helped elevate women. The early Christians gave to women a voice which, sadly, later Christians would fight against. But that voice was there, and was to never be entirely silenced. This is one of the gifts the Christian faith gave to the world. Let us hope today Christian and non-Christian alike can build upon this gift and make sure the mistakes of the past are not repeated.

I’m in a rather unique position since I am the only male asked to take part in this adventure into New Feminism. I am not the only male who is involved with New Feminism – after all, the term New Feminism has developed out of Pope John Paul II’s Letter to Women. As New Feminism encourages respect for the feminine and the feminine voice, it is important for the movement to do just that, but it is also invaluable to have voices like mine join in so as to show the movement is one of universal value and importance. It was for this reason I quickly accepted the invitation to take part, and hope that what I provide will help show the universal value of New Feminism by showing the historical precedents which have helped shape where we are today and where we can find ourselves in the future.

I am a single male, Byzantine Catholic, PhD Candidate in Historical and Systematic Theology (hopefully, nearing completion). I was not always a Catholic – I was chrismated (confirmed) on Pascha (Easter) of 1995. I was raised a Baptist, though in a family which was very spiritually independent and did not go to church services often in my youth. I was raised to have a strong personal devotion to the Christian faith – indeed, I was dedicated to God by my mother as I was born, because the doctors had told her she wouldn’t be able to have more children after my sister was born, and she was thankful the doctors were wrong. This dedication, I am sure, especially by such a loving and caring mother which I have, has been the spiritual glue which has kept me sane.

It is through my theological and historical studies that I have come to New Feminism and it is these studies which I hope to bring forward here. Intellectually, I have found myself shaped through a wide range of sources, including, and not limited to, Pope John Paul II, St. Edith Stein, Hans Urs von Balthasar with Adrienne von Speyr, Vladimir Solovyov, Sergius Bulgakov, and Paul Evdokimov. As a Byzantine Catholic, I have a great interest in exploring and developing insights from the East but also from the West, and find that this interest in bringing the “two lungs” together is similar to the interest and desire to help bring about the mutual promotion of the masculine and the feminine which comes from New Feminism.

I have seen, first hand, the great feminine genius speaking through spiritual giants such as Hildegard von Bingen (who might soon be recognized as a Doctor of the Church), St. Teresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bridget of Sweden, and St. Edith Stein. I have seen the work of and promotion of great women like St Macrina, St Monica, St Helen, St Olga, St. Clare of Assisi, New Martyr Grand Duchess Elizabeth, and Dorothy Day. All of them demonstrate something of the glory of the feminine, and have helped provide proof of the need for the feminine voice in the world; we would, as Christians, find ourselves greatly diminished if such voices had no impact in the development of Christian thought and action in the world, just as I would be much poorer for it as well.

What I will be writing on here will come from my explorations in the history and development of theology, relating historical or theological ideas to New Feminism. In doing this, sometimes what will be brought forward will need some contextualization: a person who has done some good or promoted a good idea which touches upon an issue and concern of a New Feminist might not be easily understood as such until we see it in its proper context. What is good at a certain time and date, what was a step forward, could be seen today as a step backwards from where we are at today, and so this is why it will be necessary to remember that, when dealing with history, things will be messy and uneven, especially in regards to the respect due for the feminine.

I hope people will enjoy what I have planned. I think there will be some surprises along the way.