Leaky Bodies: Uses and Abuses of Vulnerability in Feminist Methodologies

Human bodies are leaky. Leakiness, especially the leakiness of the female body, has been criticised historically, but more recently reclaimed as a strength for the task of research.[1] This is especially the case in feminist theology, where acknowledgement of the leakiness of the individual body has blended with autoethnographic research methods to privilege women’s experience in theologising. Of interest to this article is the vulnerability inherent in this turn to the sharing of the theologian’s experience in her work. Vulnerable sharing can clear the way for significant revelations, yet how this vulnerability can be managed fruitfully for both sharer and recipient must be considered. This paper aims to do just that, initiating reflection on how we can leak well in theology.

Although experience certainly has a role in all theological work, whether named or unnamed, what distinguishes feminist theology is a privileging of the particular experiences of women. As Linda Hogan explains, “by placing women’s experience at the centre of feminist thought we will begin to transform our epistemology by placing questions of what constitutes knowledge, how it is produced and who produces it, firmly on the agenda.”[2] The foregrounding of women’s experience is critical for feminist methodology and is what sets feminist theologising apart from other forms of theological reflection.

As a development from this focus on women’s experience, the use of personal sharing within feminist theology has become commonplace, if not expected. This practice is broadly termed autoethnography, a name drawn from anthropology where it is used to denote a particular form of qualitative research where the subjectivity of the researcher is acknowledged and centred, in contrast to anthropological approaches where the researcher is presumed to inquire objectively. In feminist theology, the connection to qualitative research has not been of critical interest. Autoethnography is used instead to refer to the use of personal experience and story as the locus of theological enquiry. Theologians interested in the autoethnographic method allow themselves to ‘leak’ into their theologising, sharing stories with the reader that exhibit how and why their theology has been constructed.

The Uses of Vulnerability

The practice of autoethnography is a core part of feminist methodology. It is with the focus on women’s experience in mind that feminist theologians highlight the fundamental practice of acknowledging one’s own experience and social location when approaching theology. The experience that the feminist theologian first draws on when coming to the task of theology is her own, so it is appropriate that they recognise their social location and share the experience which has informed their theological inquiry. Delores Williams makes this challenge, explaining her understanding that theologians “ought to give readers some sense of their autobiographies” to “help an audience discern what leads the theologian to do the kind of theology she does.”[3]

In addition to helping locate the researcher, explicit sharing from the theologian’s own experience also functions as a critical counterpoint to masculinist theologies, which have eschewed acknowledgement of the role of personal experience in theological enquiry. Direct reference to one’s personal experience challenges understandings of theology as the unveiling of an objective reality. Instead, autoethnographic methodologies highlight the subjective mediation of revelation through individuals and cultures and illuminate what dissonance there is between doctrinal understandings of God and how God is experienced in human lives. This methodological intention is captured by Pacific womanist theologians who explain their ethnomethodology as “rooted in women’s critical reflection on their ‘lived experience’ in a particular cultural context. This methodology assumes that theology is expressed in and mediated by culture.”[4] Similarly, uses of autoethnography foreground the located-ness of theological reflection and undermine flawed beliefs in researcher objectivity.

Furthermore, more than broad turns to “women’s experience”—itself an overly general term—practices of autoethnography serve to work against the universalism in feminist theology, which is rightfully critiqued. Done well, the sharing of stories inherent in autoethnography powerfully combats the universalisation of women’s experience by explicitly particularising the experience which guides the theological inquiry. In the practice of mujerista theology, for example, Ada María Isasi-Díaz explains how “the importance we give to lo cotidiano [daily life] steers mujerista theology away from any essentialism that would obscure precisely what is at the core of lo cotidiano: difference.”[5] This focus on the ordinary things of life in mujerista theology is echoed in the use of autoethnography by feminists more broadly: it is in the telling of everyday stories that feminist theologians particularise women’s experience and avoid the universalising generalisations which obscure difference.

Used well, the type of vulnerability offered by autoethnography highlights that all theology is human constructed and must be concerned with the messiness of life. In the words of Susan Henking, “the personal is the theological,” and the use of biography in feminist theological reflection plays a critical role in highlighting the diverse range of experiences that inform feminist work.[6] However, in spite of these clear benefits for feminist theology from the use of autoethnographic methods, cautions must be considered regarding the potential dangers of vulnerability in theological writing.

The Abuses of Vulnerability

To shape our reflections on how vulnerability can be abused in autoethnographic sharing in feminist theological writing, we consider here an example from purity culture literature. Authors of purity culture guidebooks would not claim to employ a feminist methodology. Indeed, outspoken critique of feminism is more common in these works. However, purity culture guidebooks do privilege an autoethnographic lens similar to that used in feminist theology, especially in guidebooks written by women for women, where women’s stories of sexuality, embodiment, and abuse emerge as central to discussion. The use of autoethnography in these texts offers helpful insights into the dangers of this methodology.

In Every Young Woman’s Battle, author Shannon Ethridge shares about her own experience of sexual abuse. In the first chapter, Ethridge discloses that she was date-raped as a fourteen-year-old by an older boy she had begun to see “behind my parent’s back.”[7] Later in the book, she reveals being sexually pursued prior to this event by two of her uncles, who bantered with each other over who would be the first at “getting me in bed.”[8] These experiences of sexual harm made Ethridge feel dirty, and she cites them as the reason she did not remain sexually abstinent in her later dating relationships. Reflecting on these past experiences, Ethridge concluded: “I was allowing myself to be used and was using others in ways that God never intended.”[9] In sharing this story, Ethridge draws on her experience to justify her doctrinal claims: that all extra-marital sex is a sin because of how it detracts from God’s desire for sexual purity. Autoethnographic sharing also allows Ethridge to characterise her own experience of sexual violence as a two-way abuse; she allowed herself to be abused (by indulging male desire), and she went on to be the abuser of other men with whom she was sexually involved, because she compromised their ability to pursue sexual purity.

A strength of autoethnographic writing is that it allows conversations to be conducted by those who can speak from the inside of an experience.[10] In Every Young Woman’s Battle, Ethridge illuminates the complexities of negotiating faith throughout the messiness of life and human suffering. However, through her reliance on her own experience as evidence for her theological claims, Ethridge exemplifies the danger of weaponising vulnerability to mandate a particular theological perspective. For Ethridge, the shame and guilt she experienced because of being sexually active (consensually or not) is evidence that all sex outside of marriage is abusive, sinful, and destructive. These claims, being based on her experience of the world, are difficult to refute and compelling for less critical readers. Vulnerability, here, is employed to manipulate readers towards specific conclusions, even if these are not justifiable with a broader turn to experience.

There is something of a paradox here: while the use of autoethnography should be praised for how it particularises theological reflection and works against the essentialism of general turns to experience, a fundamental danger of autoethnography is the use of personal sharing to bolster generalised claims. Ethridge’s work might be praised for her explicit reference to her story, but cautions must be raised when this sort of vulnerable sharing is manipulated for the sake of dogmatic conclusions.

A second danger in the use of autoethnography is that the theologian shares, rather than primarily the reader, as in this first example. To use an autoethnographic method means to step into vulnerability, to share from personal experience—and often personal trauma—and to open oneself up to the risks this involves. This type of sharing would often be reserved for conversations with close friends or professionals, but the facelessness of publication can offer an avenue for vulnerable sharing with reduced barriers compared to that of an embodied encounter.

As theologians who are interested in uniting theology with the messiness of human living, we have both encountered external expectations as well as felt personally drawn to share from our experiences in our theological writing. In this, questions have arisen for us about the appropriateness of the academic context for some forms of personal sharing. Sharing from experience can help open a topic for reflection, yet published work has its own life and produces uncontrolled encounters between the sharer and the recipient that are not always equipped to handle vulnerability. In saying so, we also acknowledge that risky exposure can be a catalyst for reimagination and transformation. We would encourage anyone who wishes to engage with personal sharing as a part of theological work to be generous in giving themselves the time and space needed to sit with the potential implications of such sharing.

Leaking Well

Vulnerable offerings from experience can bring a richness to theological reflection. However, there remains a danger in how such offerings are framed and discussed that must be thoughtfully negotiated. How will we leak well? To close, we offer some suggestions for how vulnerability can be meaningfully positioned in theological work.

We concur with Karen O’Donnell that an ethic of consent must consider the pleasure of others.[11] This applies whenever sharers are evaluating what and how to share their personal stories. To us, this principle encapsulates a consciousness about how vulnerable sharing can 1) expose insight about the others who feature in our stories (such as family members or past lovers), and 2) expose readers of our work to insights about us that they might find uncomfortable or confronting. Here, concerns for confidentiality and the flourishing of relationships should be at the forefront. Sharers must also carefully weigh the identity of the theology they produce. Given that theology will always be “filtered” through human “wants, desires, and beliefs,” we have a responsibility as sharers “to have the tools to be able to see” where our theologies have stemmed from, and to anticipate where others might be led by them.[12] This is especially important given the likelihood of published authors being viewed as authority figures by their audience. Leah Robinson synthesises a useful criterion for evaluating ‘good’ theology. This criterion proposes that good and robust theological work prioritises human flourishing, self-reflection, has an openness to seeking further justice and equality in the world, and allows others to be free in how they receive what is offered.[13]

 Finally, we urge for hospitality to be a guiding principle of autoethnographic sharing. Our sharing can hold open a door into some profoundly confronting and transformative spaces, both for those who share and for those who walk into the space made available. We have an obligation to be hospitable to both. If vulnerability is to feature in theological writing, let it guide a posture of humility and encourage a sense of common humanity between all who engage in the work.

---

Notes

[1] Alana Nissen, ‘Transgression, Pollution, Deformity, Bewitchment: Menstruation and Supernatural Threat in Late Medieval and Early Modern England, 1250 – 1750’ (Master’s thesis, Empire State College, 2017), 11–13.

[2] Linda Hogan, From Women’s Experience to Feminist Theology (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018), 17.

[3] Delores S. Williams, Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of Womanist God-Talk (Orbis Books, 1993), ix.

[4] Lydia Johnson, ‘“Weaving the Mat” of Pacific Women’s Theology: A Case Study in Women’s Theological Method’, in Weavings: Women Doing Theology in Oceania, ed. Lydia Johnson and Joan A. Filemoni-Tofaeono (Weavers, South Pacific Association of Theological Schools, 2003), 11.

[5] Ada María Isasi-Díaz, Mujerista Theology: A Theology for the Twenty-First Century (Orbis Books, 1996), 69.

[6] Susan E. Henking, ‘The Personal Is the Theological: Autobiographical Acts in Contemporary Feminist Theology’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion LIX, no. 3 (1991): 511–26.

[7] Shannon Ethridge and Stephen Arterburn, Every Young Woman’s Battle: Guarding Your Mind, Heart, and Body in a Sex-Saturated World (WaterBrook Press, 2009), 11.

[8] Ethridge and Arterburn, Every Young Woman’s Battle, 74. Such disclosure is thinly fore fronted by a “note to parents” in the preamble, which states Ethridge’s intention to be “frank” with her teenage readers in discussing sexual purity from “emotional, mental, spiritual, and physical perspectives.” Ethridge believes readers will find nothing discussed in Every Young Woman’s Battle “too graphic or shocking” if they are regular consumers of television, pop music, or teen magazines. See Ethridge and Arterburn, Every Young Woman’s Battle, xv.

[9] Ethridge and Arterburn, Every Young Woman’s Battle, 12. Italics added.

[10] Heather Walton, ‘What Is Auto-Ethnography and Why Does It Matter for Theological Reflection?’, ANVIL: Journal of Theology and Mission 36, no. 1 (2020): 9.

[11] Karen O’Donnell, ‘Sex and Research: The Twin Loci of Consent’, in Feminist Theologies: A Companion, Ebook, ed. Kerrie Handasyde et al. (SCM Press, 2024), 165.

[12] Leah E. Robinson, Bad Theology: Oppression in the Name of God (SCM Press, 2023), 5, 9.

[13] Robinson, Bad Theology, 65–66.

---

References

Ethridge, Shannon, and Stephen Arterburn. Every Young Woman’s Battle: Guarding Your Mind, Heart, and Body in a Sex-Saturated World. WaterBrook Press, 2009.

Henking, Susan E. ‘The Personal Is the Theological: Autobiographical Acts in Contemporary Feminist Theology’. Journal of the American Academy of Religion LIX, no. 3 (1991): 511–26.

Hogan, Linda. From Women’s Experience to Feminist Theology. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018.

Isasi-Díaz, Ada María. Mujerista Theology: A Theology for the Twenty-First Century. Orbis Books, 1996.

Johnson, Lydia. ‘“Weaving the Mat” of Pacific Women’s Theology: A Case Study in Women’s Theological Method’. In Weavings: Women Doing Theology in Oceania, edited by Lydia Johnson and Joan A. Filemoni-Tofaeono. Weavers, South Pacific Association of Theological Schools, 2003.

Nissen, Alana. ‘Transgression, Pollution, Deformity, Bewitchment: Menstruation and Supernatural Threat in Late Medieval and Early Modern England, 1250 – 1750’. Master’s thesis, Empire State College, 2017.

O’Donnell, Karen. ‘Sex and Research: The Twin Loci of Consent’. In Feminist Theologies: A Companion, Ebook, edited by Kerrie Handasyde, Stephen Burns, and Katharine Massam. SCM Press, 2024.

Robinson, Leah E. Bad Theology: Oppression in the Name of God. SCM Press, 2023.

Walton, Heather. ‘What Is Auto-Ethnography and Why Does It Matter for Theological Reflection?’ ANVIL: Journal of Theology and Mission 36, no. 1 (2020): 5–10.

Williams, Delores S. Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of Womanist God-Talk. Orbis Books, 1993.

---

© Jess Hall and Jaimee van Gemerden, 2026. This article is a part of a series in collaboration with the FTN (Feminist Theology Network). FTN social media: https://www.instagram.com/feministtheologynetwork/ and @feministtheology.bsky.social

This work is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

Cover Image: “Leaking sculpture” by Fredrik Linge, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 .