Women in Church Leadership
Women and the Word
Wo/men of the Word

Reclaiming Our Power of Memory

Dr. Elizabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza is an internationally acclaimed scholar, lecturer, activist and teacher. She combines her ground-breaking work in biblical interpretation with extensive involvement with women in church, ministry and theology. She is the Krister Stendahl professor of religion at Harvard Divinity School.  Her books In Memory of Her (1983) and Bread Not Stone (1984) are acclaimed for their path-breaking scholarship and have been translated into a dozen languages. In 1987 U.S. Catholic magazine chose her as "Catholic of the Year."

Keynote Address of Dr. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza

Wisdom has built Her house,
She has set up Her seven pillars…
She also has set Her table.
She has sent out Her wo/men ministers
to call from the highest places in the town…
“Come eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed.
Leave immaturity, and live,
And walk in the way of Wisdom (Proverbs 9:1-3.5-6)

We have gathered this weekend because we have heard the call of Divine Wisdom and have been sent out as her wo/men ministers to proclaim her invitation. We have come together here to celebrate our common struggles for a just church and to renew our vision for a world free of oppression. We have assembled as the ekklesia of wo/men living the discipleship of equals. We have come together to celebrate our baptismal call and to share with each other our lived and variegated gifts as Wo/men of the Word, as ministers of Divine Wisdom. We have assembled here to proclaim: Wo/men are the image of G*d and represent Jesus-Sophia as pastors, priests, chaplains, ministers, the*logians, bishops, teachers, liturgists, canon lawyers, presidents, directors, dancers, mothers, counselors and many others.

We have gathered here to remember our biblical fore-sisters in the struggle who have been eliminated from public church knowledge or deformed in the interest of cultural femininity: Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron, who asked: Did G*d not also speak with us?,” the wo/men prophets in Corinth who insisted on speaking G*d’s word in the assembly- the ekklesia, the Syrophoenician wo/man who challenged Jesus to get rid of his prejudice and to heal her daughter, the wo/men disciples such as Mary of Magdala, who were with Jesus in Galilee, witnessed his execution and became the primary witnesses to the resurrection. We re-imagine them and remember their struggles in order to receive strength in our own struggles today

Feminist biblical interpretation and the*logy has made it possible for us to remember our Early Christian fore-sisters as wo/men of the word. In the past 40 years or so feminist scholarship has amply documented that wo/men were apostles, missionaries, prophets, community leaders and healers not only in early Christianity but also throughout church history. Feminists in the churches have insisted on their birth- and baptismal right to equal citizenship in society and church. Yet, like the Galilean wo/men disciples, we are often passed over with silence, like the wo/men prophets of Corinth we are censured by autocratic hierarchies. Like Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron, we are often punished and shunned in our struggles for equal citizenship when we ask: Did G*d not also speak with us? It is feminist the*logy that has enabled us to ask this question.

The F –Word: Feminist

Although I was cautioned not to use the label feminist too much, since it might scare some of you away, I have done so several times. The expression "feminist" still evokes in many audiences a complex array of emotions, negative reactions, and prejudices, and also a host of different understandings. Since the f-word is still or again in most of the world a “dirty word,” I hasten to explain how I understand the f-word feminist. [But before I do so, I want you to turn to your neighbor and share your understanding of feminism and whether you are a feminist and why not.]

My preferred definition of feminism is expressed by a well-known bumper sticker which with tongue in cheek asserts “feminism is the radical notion that wo/men are people.” Wo/men are not ladies, wives, handmaids, seductresses, or beasts of burden, but wo/men are full decision-making citizens. This definition accentuates that feminism is a radical concept and at the same time ironically underscores that at the beginning of the 21st century, feminism should be a common sense notion. It alludes to the democratic assertion "We, the people" and positions feminism within radical democratic discourses, which argue for the rights of all the people who are wo/men.

This bumper sticker definition of feminism evokes memories of struggles for equal citizenship and decision making powers in society and religion.

According to this political definition of feminism, men can advocate feminism just as wo/men can be antifeminist. Feminism is not just concerned about gender but also about race, class, and imperialism. It is concerned about kyriarchal i.e. emperor, lord, slave master, father, elite male determined power relations of domination. As the*logical inquiry, feminist biblical interpretation focuses on the imperial power relations inscribed in Scripture as the Word of G*d

In order to lift into consciousness the linguistic violence of so-called generic, androcentric that is male-centered language which eliminates wo/men from the cultural and religious records, I use the term “wo/men” and not “men” in an inclusive, generic way. I suggest that whenever you hear “wo/men” you understand it in the generic sense. Wo/men includes men, she includes he, and female includes male. Feminist studies of language have elaborated that Western, kyriocentric, that is slave master, lord, father, male centered, language systems understand language as both generic and as gender specific.

Wo/men always must think at least twice, if not more, and adjudicate whether we are meant or not by so-called generic terms such as “men, brothers, humans, Americans, or Catholics.” To use “wo/men” as an inclusive generic term invites men to learn how to “think twice” and to experience what it means not to be addressed explicitly. Since wo/men always must arbitrate whether we are meant or not, I consider it a good spiritual exercise for men to acquire the same sophistication and to learn how to engage in the same hermeneutical process of “thinking twice” and of asking whether they are meant when I speak of wo/men. Since according to Wittgenstein the limits of our language are the limits of our world, such a change of language patterns is a very important step toward the realization of a new feminist consciousness.

Because of the many different forms of wo/men’s discrimination and our variegated struggles for full citizenship in church and society, there are many divergent and even contradictory articulations of feminism, for instance womanism, mujerista, latina, black, Asian, or Native American feminism, so that it is appropriate to speak of “feminisms” in the plural. Most of them agree that contemporary feminism is not only a political movement that is akin to other emancipatory movements. It also is an intellectual and religious methodology both for investigating and theorizing the experiences and structures of wo/men’s dehumanization and for articulating norms of well-being and visions of change. The diverse articulations of feminism, I suggest, come together in their critique of kyriarchy i.e. the domination of the Lord, emperor, slave-master, father, elite male domination; they hold that gender, like race, class and nation, is socially constructed rather than innate or ordained by G*d.

The*logically, feminism understands wo/men as the people of G*d and indicts the death-dealing powers of religious exclusion and oppression as structural sin and life-destroying evil. Hence, feminist the*logies and studies in religion have the goal not only to fundamentally alter the nature of malestream knowledge about G*d, the self, and the world, but to also to change institutionalized religions that have excluded wo/men from leadership positions throughout the centuries.

Feminist History as Memory

Re-claiming the authority of wo/men for shaping and determining biblical religions, feminist theo*logies ask new questions and employ new ways of seeing in order to recover the histories of wo/men’s religious leadership and struggles which have been forgotten or diminished. In the past 40 years feminist scholars have elaborated how church teaching and scientific historiography has been shaped by gender and the interest in nationalist domination. Malestream historical scholarship has prioritized men’s history over wo/men’s, white history over the history of people of color, the political history of Western domination over the history of struggles against it. Thus malestream historiography has produced scientific historical “facts” about wo/men which construct wo/men’s historical absence and second class citizenship.

Church teachings and religious dogmas have equally relegated wo/men to the fringes, indicted leading wo/men as heretics, or seen them as help-mates of the leading men in history. Biblical texts about wo/men have been forgotten, excluded from the lectionary, or interpreted in feminine subordinate terms. Hence, feminist scholars of early Christianity have argued that the story of Christian origins must be retold not just as the story of leading men but also as the story of wo/men from all walks of life, wo/men who have made history. In order to accomplish this project, much of feminist work has first focused on texts about wo/men without questioning their androcentric =male centered rhetorics.

My own work has insisted that such marginalizing rhetoric must be critically analyzed, since wo/men are a construction of such androcentric texts. A feminist reconstruction of Christian beginnings, I have argued, needs to critically investigate both androcentric biblical texts as to the androcentric imagination and the*logy that undergirds these texts as well as scientific models of historical reconstruction.

Compelled by the feminist critique of androcentric language and historiography, I set out in my book In Memory of Her to show that the early Christian story could be told – and must be told – otherwise moving wo/men from margin to center. My question was: Do we still find traces of egalitarian emancipatory tendencies in androcentric Early Christian sources. “Do we still have sufficient information and source texts to tell the story of the movement carrying Jesus’ name otherwise?” Do we still have enough information in kyriocentric=lord-centered records that enables us to tell early Christian history as a story about the equal discipleship of wo/men and men, slaves and free, Jews and barbarians? Can the early Christian story still be told in terms of equality rather than in terms of kyriarchy since egalitarian relations are the most obvious alternatives to dominance-submission relationships. The task, I argued, involves not so much discovering new sources as recognizing the androcentric rhetoricity of our available sources and rereading them in a different key.

Not only was there plenty of material that could be read in an egalitarian frame of interpretation, but such an egalitarian reading could also do more justice to our sources that speak about wo/men’s leadership in ways that malestream scholarship and church teaching felt compelled to explain away, overlook, or interpret in terms of cultural femininity. To give two examples: The malestream interpretation of Phoebe in Romans 16, for instance, was notorious for depicting her as a help-mate at Paul’s meetings rather than as the leader of a house-church. Or to give a second example: Mary of Magdala and the other wo/men were usually understood as supporting Jesus and his itinerant male disciples emotionally and financially, doing the necessary “house work” and helping the men with their monetary resources.

If one understands the mechanisms of androcentric or better kyriocentric language, one can not simply focus on texts about wo/men but must problematize the rhetoricity of the androcentric text as well as place wo/men as historical agents into the center of attention. By so doing, we must avoid an “add wo/men and stir” approach. Instead, we must engage in a feminist re-vision of early Christian history in the interest of liberation which presupposes a con-version, a turning-around of wo/men from self-negation to self-affirmation.

This critical feminist approach challenges not only malestream historical scholarship and hierarchical teachings to recognize that they have engendered prejudice and exclusions of wo/men from the historical record, but also calls for a feminist conversion. For instance, it is often argued that Jesus choose only men as apostles and not wo/men. Hence, it is maintained, wo/men can not be ordained and become successors of the apostles. Yet, this argument overlooks, on the one hand that wo/men were disciples and apostles in the beginnings of Christianity, and on the other that Jesus himself was not ordained and did not ordain anyone, male or female. In order to sustain this feminist argument, it is important that wo/men learn how to affirm ourselves and our fore-sisters.

If feminist historical knowledge is to foster the self-recognition and self-determination of wo/men, then we must participate in re-envisioning “early Christian origins” as an alternative memory to that of domination. To do so, we must avoid the apologetic fallacy which argues that the leading men of Early Christian beginnings, such as for instance Paul, accepted wo/men. We should not continue to ascribe all agency, power and authority to Paul and conceive of wo/men only as followers of the male apostles and leaders. To argue in this vain would mean to re-inscribe the andro-kyriocentric mindset of malestream teaching that places men at the center of attention and sees wo/men only in relation to men, dependent on their approval and power. Instead we need to shift our attention away from the image of the authoritative and powerful apostle Paul to the Corinthian wo/men prophets and other wo/men leaders such as Priska, Phoebe or Junia who were founding figures of Early Christian communities, although we have no records written by them.

In short, early Christian history must be re- told, I have argued, in “In Memory of Her,” as the memory of the struggles between those who envisioned and practiced a “discipleship of equals,” and those who advocated the kyriarchal order of domination and subordination, those who sought to realize the ekklesia of wo/men and those who championed church as modeled after the kyriarchally organized imperial household which was stratified by gender, class, race, slavery and caste as part of the “natural order” of the universe and seen as divinely ordained.

I am often asked whether it would matter if it could be shown that in fact wo/men did not participate in the early Christian movements or that there was no impulse whatever in antiquity to radical equality. Does it matter, whether or not history provides us with any examples of emancipation, equality and justice? In response I would point out: Since history shapes identity and our view of the world, it matters, whether wo/men and other subjugated peoples have a history not just of violence, subordination and exploitation but also a history of liberation, agency, and equality—a history that is not just utopian, but has already been partially realized in the past and is again and again realized in the present.

Egalitarian Reconstructive Models

The past is never simply discovered but is always re-imagined and reconstructed in order to link the present with the past and the future. The remembered past always seeks to provide traditions, models and visions for living communities today. If memory shapes individual and collective identity, then it is important to scrutinize the reconstructive models that scholars or churchmen use to tell the story of the remembered past. Such models and frameworks need to be tested out not only as to how much they can make visible wo/men as historical agents, but also as to how much they are able to transform kyriarchally defined collective memory. Only the presumption of -- slave and freeborn, rich and poor, Jewish, Greek, Asian or Roman -- wo/men’s historical and the*logical agency, will allow us to read the ambiguities, gaps, and silences of androcentric i.e. grammatically masculine texts against the grain.

Consequently, I have proposed two feminist models or frameworks for re-imagining early Christian beginnings: one frame is “discipleship of equals” and the other. “ekklesia of wo/men.” They are guiding images that seek to inspire religious communities to feminist action in the present and the future. Discipleship of Equals harks back to the language of the gospels whereas ekklesia of wo/men seeks to correct and radicalize the democratic political tradition that has left its marks in the Pauline literature. Both expressions are like the two sides of the same coin. I begin with the image of the ekklesia of wo/men:

Ekklesia of Wo/men
In the 1980s I have coined the notion of the ekklesia gynaikon translated into English as wo/men – church and conceptualized it as an in-between space that sought to overcome the dualistic feminist alternative either “exodus” from church and religion or acceptance of church and religion uncritically as “home,” forgetting the violence that often takes place in the kyriarchal home By introducing the radical democratic notion of the “ekklesia of wo/men” as an alternative religious symbolic space and biblical image to those of “exodus from patriarchy” and “ patriarchal home,” I sought to reframe the feminist binary either feminist or religious, either moving out of church or remaining beholden to its hierarchy, which re-inscribed the dualistic division between religion and culture, religion and democratic rights, or religious and secular wo/men’s movements.

The expression ekklesia of wo/men,picks up the early Christian communal self-designation ekklesia i.e. the democratic assembly of full citizens and qualifies it with wo/men in order to express the radical equality in the Spirit-Wisdom community. All members have received the gifts of Spirit-Wisdom but not all are the same. The members of the body of Christ - or better of the messianic corporation - are all equal and at the same time different because of their manifold gifts
Ekklesia is best conceptualized as an alternative space - not as a counter or anti -space - but as an alternative space to domination and empire because it is constituted not by super- and subordination but by egalitarian relationships. Elizabeth Castelli has rightly likened the notion of the ekklesia of wo/men to an utopian space of “texts, institutions and worldviews hat critique the historical or contemporary situation and promote an alternative vision of social and individual existence.” Moreover, within the context of social movements for change, one can understand the ekklesia of wo/men not only as a virtual utopian space but also as an already partially realized space of living community and radical equality, as a site of feminist struggles to transform social and religious institutions and discourses.

Discipleship of Equals

Whereas the notion of the “ekklesia of wo/men” belongs to the language context of the Pauline letters, the notion of the “discipleship of equals” is rooted in the language world of the gospels. The genitive “of equals” that qualifies discipleship, introduces a philosophically loaded and highly contested concept of rhetorical power. Equality is often misunderstood as sameness. But whereas identity means sameness, equality signifies a “correspondence” between a group of different persons or things that have the “same quality in at least one respect but not in all respects that is they differ in many respects.”

Equality has close links with justice. It expresses the fundamental moral principle or idea of equal dignity that is the equal worth of all persons and requires equal respect for all persons. Equality does not imply the adaptation or assimilation to a standard kyriarchal male norm but it is rather a radical democratic challenge to it. Discipleship of equals then signifies communities of persons with equal worth and respect who follow a common vision of justice.

The image of the ekklesia of wo/men makes it possible to understand Jesus and early Christian beginnings as shaped by the agency and leadership of Jewish, Greco-Roman, Asian, African, free and enslaved, rich and poor, elite and marginal wo/men. Those who hold the opposite view, that for instance, slave wo/men were not active shapers of early Christian life, would have to argue their point. If one shifts from a kyriarchal frame of reference to that of the discipleship of equals, one no longer can hold for instance, that wo/men were not leaders or even members of some early Christian communities. If one cannot prove that wo/men were not leaders or members, one needs to give the benefit of the doubt to the textual traces suggesting that they were. Rather than take the kyriocentric text at face value, one must unravel its politics of meaning.

Yet, in my book In Memory of Her I still followed the androcentric and kyriocentric narrative lead of the gospels which puts “Jesus” in the center of the story, although I sought to portray him as first among equals in the movement named after him. Such an interpretation that focuses on Jesus, the Lord, re-inscribes the cultural kyriocentric gender frame that places elite man, the kyrios-Lord, into the center of attention and defines wo/man in relation to Him as either subordinate or as secondary. Hence, it is important to recognize this kyriocentric pattern. In order to overcome it one needs to imagine a discipleship of equals in which Jesus was first among equals. In this frame of a discipleship of equals the movement which is named after Jesus, is best understood as placing not Jesus but the vision of the basileia i.e. of G*d’s “different” world of justice and well-being in the center of its struggles. Because of this vision, Jesus was executed by the Romans.

The Basileia of G*d

The central symbol of the movement named after Jesus, is the basileia, the kingdom or better the commonwealthof G*d. This term expresses a Jewish religious-political vision that spells freedom from domination and is common to all the different movements in first century Israel. However, it is difficult to translate the Greek term basileia adequately because it can either mean kingdom, kingly realm, domain or it can be rendered as empire, monarchy, kingly rule, sovereignty, dominion, or reign. In any case the word has not only monarchic but also masculinist overtones. Hence, the translation of the term with kindom which has been suggested by Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz, also is not adequate because it does not communicate the political meaning of basileia.
To lift the political meaning of basileia into consciousness, I suggest, that basileia is best translated with words such as “ commonwealth or commonweal.” Such a rendering of the word basileia underscores linguistically the oppositional character of the empire/commonweal of G*d to that of the Roman empire that crucified Jesus. Since such a translation is generally not understood, however, in an alternative sense but as ascribing to G*d imperial monarchic power, I have tended not to translate the Greek word basileia but to use it as a symbol that evokes a whole range of the*logical meanings. Leaving the term basileia untranslatedseeks to bring to the fore its political impact and eschatological significance in the first century C.E. while at the same time problematizing its kyriarchal politics of meaning.
Exegetes agree that the Roman form of imperial domination signified by the term basileia has determined the world and experience of all Jewish movements in the first century including that of which Jesus and Mary of Magdala were a part Jesus and his companions, wo/men and men, sought for the emancipation and well-being of Israel as the people of G*d, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex 19:6). They announced the basileia (commonweal or commonwealth) of G*d as an alternative to the empire of Rome.

The basileia / commonweal of G*d is a religious symbol proclaiming G*d’s power of creation and salvation. This term also connotes a political vision that appealed to the oppositional imagination of people victimized by the Roman imperial system. It envisions an alternative world free of hunger, poverty and domination. This “envisioned” world is already anticipated in the inclusive table-community, in the healing and liberating practices, as well as in the domination free kinship community of the discipleship of equals which found many followers among the poor, the despised, the ill and possessed, the outcasts and sinners.

In short, discipleship does not mean that the wo/men disciples followed the great male master Jesus, but it means that like Jesus they followed the vision of the basileia, the “alternative world” of G*d. It also means that the discipleship of equals derives its meaning from its political context in 1st century Palestine under Roman occupation.
Feminist re-membering of the early Christian wo/men disciples, therefore, can not simply focus on texts about wo/men and Jesus. Rather it must imagine early Judaism and early Christianity in such a way that it can make marginalized wo/men such as Mary of Magdala visible as central agents of the basileia movement. This requires a reconsideration of the dominant the*logical reconstructive framework that --as Rosemary Radford Ruether has aptly put it-- has produced Christian anti-Judaism as the left hand and divine masculinism as the right hand of christology. This framework has engendered the elite masculine church structures of domination that exclude wo/men from proclaiming the Word, from apostolic succession and from church leadership.
Undergirding this re-constructive frame of the discipleship of equals are four basic assumptions:
First: Anti-Judaism is contrary to a feminist Christian the*logy because such a prejudice does not recognize that Jesus and the movement of which he was a part were Jewish wo/men. They were not Christian in our sense of the word. Rather as Jewish Galilean wo/men they gathered as the discipleship of equals for common meals, the*logical reflection and healing events. They did so because they had the “dream” of the basieia of G*d and followed a vision of liberation for everyone in Israel.
Second: Who Jesus was and what he did can only be glimpsed in the interpretations and memory of the discipleship of equals understood as a first century Jewish movement. Therefore the movement of which Jesus was a member must not be separated from other messianic movements in first century Judaism.
Third: This emancipatory movement of Galilean Jewish wo/men must be seen as a part of the variegated basileia movements that in the first century sought for the “liberation” of Israel from imperial exploitation. The concrete political referent of these movements was the colonial occupation of Israel by the Romans. Some of them, such as the Pharisees or Essenes, stressed the notion of “priesthood and holy nation.” Others, such as the apocalyptic prophetic movements stressed the political notion of the basileia (empire/commonweal ) of G*d as alternative to the Roman Empire.
Fourth: The emerging variegated predominantly Galilean movement in which Jesus had leadership may have understood itself as a prophetic movement of Divine Sophia-Wisdom. That it named itself after Jesus, the Messiah - Christ, was probably due to the conviction which had emerged after Jesus’ execution that he was the Vindicated or Resurrected One. This conviction has its roots in the wo/men’s tradition of the “empty tomb” which centered around the proclamation “that Jesus is going ahead of you to Galilee,” the site where the antimonarchical prophetic traditions were still alive.
This tradition manifests the self-understanding of the inner-Jewish, Galilean basileia (empire/commonweal) of G*d movement as an ongoing and inclusive movement of prophets and messengers sent to Israel by Divine Wisdom. The discipleship of equals as basileia movement is thus best understood as a Wisdom/Sophia movement whose members like John the Baptizer and Jesus can be quite different in their strategies for change but they have in common their work to make present and experientially available G*d’s different world of justice and well-being..
Such an egalitarian re-constructive historical model is able to place the beginnings of the Galilean prophetic-wisdom basileia movement within a broader historical frame of reference. This frame allows us to trace the tensions and struggles between emancipatory understandings and movements in Early Christianity inspired by the democratic logic of equality on the one hand and the kyriarchal structures of imperial Roman society and religion on the other.

Yet, it must not be overlooked, ancient movements of emancipatory struggles against exploitation and domination do not begin with the movement around Jesus. Rather they have a long history in Greek, Roman, Asian, and Jewish cultures. The emancipatory struggles of biblical wo/men must be seen within the wider context of cultural-political-religious struggles for freedom from oppression.

Such an historical model of emancipatory struggle sees the Jesus of history and the movement that has kept alive his memory not over and against Judaism but over and against structures of domination in antiquity and today. The wo/men friends of Jesus have been “going ahead” of us in the emancipatory struggles for a world of justice, liberation and freedom from kyriarchal oppression. Hence, it is appropriate to conclude these reflections by calling the wo/men of the word, our fore-sisters in the struggles for justice and wellbeing, into our midst. With them we praise Divine Wisdom in the discipleship of equals:.

A wandering Aramean was my fore-sister
In Egypt she bore slaves.
Then she called to the G*d of our ancestors
Sarah, Hagar, Rebecca, Rachel, Leah.
Praise Divine Wisdom Who Hears, Forever.

A warrior, judge, and harlot was my fore-sister
G*d called her from time to time
to save and liberate her people
Miriam, Jael, Deborah, Judith, Tamar
Praise Divine Wisdom Who Saves, Forever.

A Galilean Jew was my fore-sister.
She bore a wonderful child
to be persecuted, hated and executed.
Mary of the Magnificat, mother of sorrows.
Praise Divine Wisdom Who Gives Strength, Forever.

A witness to Christ's resurrection was my fore-sister.
The apostle to the apostles
Rejected, forgotten, proclaimed a whore
Mary of Magdala, leader in the ekklesia of wo/men
Praise Divine Wisdom Who Lives, Forever.

An apostle, prophet, founder, and teacher was my fore-sister
called to the discipleship of equals
Empowered by the Sophia-G*d of Jesus
Martha, Phoebe, Junia, Priscilla, Myrta, Nympha, Thecla
Praise Divine Wisdom Who Calls, Forever.

A faithful Christian wo/man was my fore-sister.
A mystic, witch, martyr, heretic, saint, uppity wo/man
A native American, a black slave, a poor immigrant, an old hag, a wise wo/man
May we, with her, in every generation
Praise Divine Wisdom whose justice and love sustains us all.

I have revised "A Wandering Aramaean..." by Mother Thunder Mission, USA, repr. in Women's Prayer Series, ed. Gjerding and Kinnamon (Mystic: Twenty-Third Publications, 1987), 41.