Sources
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

I see the perspective from the "bottom" as key to my feminist liberation methodology.. . . I find the crucial way to see the dominant system of patriarchy, including its racism, classism, and colonialism in critical perspective is to put myself constantly in those places where, in solidarity with its victims, I can see it from the underside. This does not mean victims are infallible or without their own delusions and potential to misuse power. Poor people can trash each other for limited resources. . . . Nevertheless, those from oppressed groups committed to the struggle for justice for their community continue to be for me a "cognitive minority" whose insights are crucially revelatory for the likes of myself from the white middle class. . who seek to see global social reality truthfully and to act and think out of that perspective. . . . Also, . . .my theology combines the view from the "bottom" with the view from . . . he vision of redemptiive transformation of creation. My understanding of the New Creation as the norm for theological reflection is rooted in an ontology of primal "origins".

When I think of ontological origins that underlie future hope, I am thinking of deep ontological structures that underlie human and all living being and that dispose us to biophilic mutality as our authentic mode of being. The ultimate "ground of being" of these deep ontological structures, and the future promise that they hold, are what i call God, But God is not a "being" removed from creation, ruling it from ouside in the manner of a patriarchal ruler; God is the source of being that underlies creation and grounds its nature and future potential for continual transformative renewal in biophilic mutuality. Rosemary Ruether, Women and Redemption: A Theological History (SCM, 1998), 223.

I insist on saying that the most serious question is not the "loss of faith" but situations in which faith is impossible. What is called "loss of faith" comes to be the disorganisation of a certain system in which one thought one had faith, when there was only a "catechism knowledge" but not a true faith. And so one hasn't lost faith but, on the contrary, by disassembling the structure of what one thought faith was, one is in just the right position to be able to have faith.....The realisation that what was thought to be universal and definitive was a historical moment, that loss of the security of the doctrine that seemed to be loss of faith is precisely the condition of possibility for beginning to believe. Enrique Dussel, in Conversations with Contemporary Theologians, ed. Teofilo Cabestrero (Orbis, 1977), 45.