Theologian/Mystic

I wonder... is the definition of Theologian, as it is generally formulated, part of the problem with the question here? Meaning that... those who shaped the discourse of Theology and thus the definition of a Theologian are a select few in power. Perhaps, but not necessarily, because they are men and generally have different strengths and tendencies in thought, they have unfairly shaped what the accepted definition of a Theologian is to what a typical male theologian might be.Thus, those who are, in a true sense, Theologians, but not maintaining perhaps the abstraction, impersonalization, or distance of a traditional thinker, would not be granted the title they would rightly deserve. Julian of Norwich, if her theological contributions warrant, could perhaps follow under this title?

On a sidenote...why is it that for some reason, when I think of a theologian... I envision someone respectable, informed, and intelligent. But a mystic... I see one who is not necessarily intelligent, driven by whims, perhaps, a little out there at times. How did I get somehow turned away from those qualities which are some of the greatest strengths of feminine thinkers? Namely... empathetic, instinctive, creative in a nurturing, not necessarily original way.

How intertwined are mysticism and theology and what does that mean for the disciplines as academia has been shaped? What does this mean for the categorization of individuals like Julian of Norwich?