mls@cbnewsm.att.com (michael.l.siemon) (06/24/89)
+ The last issue I'd like to mention is a specific problem with
+ "creator, redeemer, and sustainer."
+ ... Unfortunately, creator, redeemer and sustainer name,
+ not roles in this eternal relationship, but ways that God interacts
+ with the world. They imply that the Trinity does not tell us about
+ God's actual nature, but just about how he deals with us.
I would go a bit further in criticism here; use of "functional" description
here (i.e., where a Trinitarian reference is wanted) suggests a sort of
Platonizing mythology (cf. _demiourgos_ in the "Timaios") instead of the
irreducibly "personal" Godhead. It also tends to hide from Jesus' use of
_Abba_ as in some sense the most salient point about God. I fear that
this insistence on "Father" becomes a "scandal for the feminists" of the
same sort as a crucified Messiah did for Paul's Jewish audiences. The very
particularity of the history of Christ is going to present such problems. I
sympathize with feminism, but I know of no way of avoiding the traditional
statements; at the least we need some assurance that modern rephrasing
does not miss the point of the original.
The historical reality is given; if we cannot see God within that, then the
problem and the impoverishment are ours. (Aside: it is sometimes said that
Jesus having been male, along with the 12, "proves" that men should be in
charge. I regard it as sufficient answer to this to suggest the following
midrash: God previously incarnated as a woman, but no one noticed, so he had
to try again.) To the limited extend that I understand the language issues
raised by women, I see three sticking points, only the first stated in your
article to which I am responding:
1. God as "father" The issue is, does this MEAN anything different
from God as "mother"? Part of the problem is an experience of
"father" as oppressor, or symbol of past oppression. I have to rule
that out of court, from the basis of my own experience. God is
"father" as we SHOULD have fathers, as against whatever painful
experience we MAY have had personally. In Catholic discourse, there
is a sense in which Mary monopolizes maternal attributes, as the
Mother of God; but I think this is also a red herring. Trying to limit
feminine imagery to NON divine figures strikes me as a mistake.
The central issue is the one you raised, whether we may use maternal
language about God as readily as paternal. Ancient preconception took
"male" to mean active and "female" passive, and from that viewpoint.
one can see why one might hesitate to use maternal language of God,
who is the source of action. I don't think we can sustain such pre-
judices in any modern theology. I liked your citation:
+ Pentz seeing Jesus' death as an act of childbirth, suffering to bring us to
+ new birth. She describes other aspects of both the Father's and Jesus' way
+ of dealing with us as mothering.
This, as you say, seems insightful; and it suggests to me "spiritual
exercises" in which we attempt to think of God alternately as father
or mother. In some sense, it then is a personal choice to use in
private "whatever works." For the public liturgy, I agree that we
SHOULD be able to use historical language for its positive statements,
and not for its limitations. But that to me implies a willingness to
grant public, liturgical, time to feminine imagery that has been
SUPPRESSED in our tradition -- I'm thinking of such things as the
hymns to God's Wisdom, and I'll quote some examples at the end of
this article. There is no reason these cannot be part of our liturgies.
2. Jesus as "Lord" -- here I ran afoul of some feminists about ten years
ago, when my church in Berkeley was doing some liturgical exploration
of the inclusive language issue. I am not sure I even now understand
the problem, but what appears to have been the central issue is that
a lot of women have been sensitized to "lord" in the contex of husbands
as "lords and masters." This raises for them the 19th century cliche
"He for God only; she for God in him" which is a statement that women
are second class Christians. Any such implication HAS to be rejected.
In Christ there is NO distinction of gender. The Church must proclaim,
I think, that Christ is "in charge"; each of us must individually yield
to the demands that Christ makes on us. But I am at a loss as to how
to express this other than to say that Christ is my Lord. I'd welcome
a feminist restatement of the theological point, but until I have one
I am unable to express an important point of my faith without using
this term. As in the case of maternal language for God, this amounts
to an implicit call for the poets among us to forge for us the words
we need today.
3. The last point is the central one of Jesus' preaching: the Kingdom of
God. Now, kindgoms in our sad historical experience besides being
dominated by men have the problem of being heirarchical in nature --
there are always ranks and degrees. Jesus comes as close as I could
want to rejecting this whole notion -- the last shall be first, even
the least in the Kingdom is hapier than the Baptist, those who vie to
sit at his right hand in the Kingdom must be prepared to suffer his
sufferings, he came as Servant and those who reject his service are
rejecting his Kingdom -- so Peter requests to have not just his feet
washed! Again I assume it is the inescapable fact that women have
always been placed at the bottom of royal heirarchies -- except in
relation to the men who "define" them -- that causes feminists to be
unhappy with this sort of language. And yet here too, even though I
an ardent democrat in practically all matters of secular (or even of
religious) governance, I see no alternative to the language of King and
Kingdom. God calls us as children, not as business partners. Images
of the Kingdom might be replaceable by images of Family -- yet this
doesn't seem to do justice to the universal incorporation of all of us
into the divine family by adoption. Again, I have to call for a poet to
help me in my floundering among the limited words I have inherited.
The question of "aesthetics" is irrelevant. Old language will ALWAYS sound
better in a liturgical context, just because it has grown familiar it is no
longer heard as individual words and phrases. My experience with the newer
Episcopal serives is a case in point -- I have always used the new versions,
since the time when they were "services for trial use." and I find the 1929
Prayer Book awkward, ugly and largely pointless. Which, of course, is just
what those who grew up on the 1928 BCP say about the new one. Neither of
these points of view is "correct" -- all they point to is familiarity. That
is relevant to the objection:
+ We recently sang "All people that on earth do dwell" in a non-sexist
+ version. The second verse was "The Lord, you know, is God indeed.
+ Without our aid God did us make; We are the sheep which God doth feed,
+ And for a flock God doth us take." This simply cries out LOOK AT ME.
+ I'M NOT SAYING HIM OR HIS. I can't believe that this is any
+ improvement. I'd rather have a complete rewrite than this sort of
+ mindless editing.
Sorry, but your objection is nothing more than a statement that you know
a different version. I stumble over differences in Christmas carols as sung
by Episcopalians with different words than the ones I learned as a child. In
this case, scansion, word usage and most other "objective" means of critical
judgment do not favor the older over the newer version here. I agree that
there are times when proposed substitutes for traditional language offend
me, in hymns or in readings. And yes, there ARE times when a substitution
calls attention to itself independently of a knowledge of the original. Once
again, we desperately need poetic competence in revision of our hymnals and
liturgies, and we sometimes see a too-evident fto use a pronoun or repeat a
nominal reference -- is by no means so rigid and well-defined as you seem
to suggest here. It is only awkward for you BECAUSE you have a conditioned
response that it contradicts. Namely, you used to sing the hymn in the older
version and now you have to stumble over the "substitution." In time you
will not stumble, and a new generation won't even understand what you are
complaining about.
[My complaint was that simple replacement of Him with God resulted in
so many occurrences of God that it sounded unnatural. We normally use
pronouns rather than repeating a name every few words. I generally
prefer more radical rewrites rather than simple replacements. By the
way, I looked through the proposed new hymnal, and see no ackwardness
in it, so I suspect that the problem was just with a text that was
produced in a hurry for a single meeting. --clh]
One of the things that most amused me as an adult coming for the first time
to the (1940) Episcopalian hymnal, and a whole bunch of hymns I never sang as
a child, is that MOST of them are obnoxious from a literary point of view.
(This applies, for example, to some of the translations of Lutheran hymns from
the German; the Winkworth translations are not BAD, but they are also not so
very good. It applies with even more force to some of the truly bad 19th
century English compositions. Thank God for Vaughn-WIlliams and his settings
of George Herbert!) And the congregations are happily oblivious to this. It
is not literary merit that sustains our liturgies, much as I delight in it
when it IS present.
It is not the details of statements where we need the work of good poets, but
the grand scheme of symbol and imagery. That is what is insightful in the
birthing image of Pentz you cited above. And we need to regain such imagery
as already lies at hand within the tradition, for example:
God of our ancestors, Lord of mercy,
who by your Word have made all things ...
grant me Wisdom, consort of your throne
and do not reject me from the number of your children.
...
With you is Wisdom, she who knows your works,
she was present whe you made the world;
she understands what is pleasing in your eyes
and what agrees with your commandments.
Despatch her from the holy heavens,
and send her forth from your throne of glory
to help me and to toil with me
and teach me what is pleasing to you,
since she knows and understands everything.
-- Wisdom 9:1,9-10
Or:
Wisdom brings up her own sons,
and cares for those who seek her.
Whoever loves her loves life,
those who wait on her early will be filled with happiness.
Whoever holds her close will inherit honor,
and wherever he walks the Lord will bless him.
Those who serve her minister to the Holy One,
and the Lord loves those who love her.
Whoever obeys her judges aright,
and whoever pays attention to her dwells secure.
If he trusts himself to her he will inherit her,
and his descendants will remain in possession of her.
For though she takes him at first through winding ways,
bringing fear and faintness upon him,
plaguing him with her discipline until she can trust him,
and testing him with her ordeals,
in the end she will lead him back to the straight road,
and reveal her secrets to him.
If he wanders away she will abandon him,
and hand him over to his fate.
...
Put your feet into her fetters,
and your neck into her harness;
give your shoulder to her yoke,
do not be restive in her reins;
court her with all your soul,
and with all your might keep in her ways;
go after her and seek her; she will reveal herself to you;
once you hold her, do not let her go.
For in the end you will find rest in her
and she will take the form of joy for you;
her fetters you will find are a strong defense,
her harness a robe of honor.
Her yoke will be a golden ornament,
her reins, purple ribbons;
you will wear her like a robe of honor,
you will put her on like a crown of honor.
-- Ecclesiasticus 4:11-19, 6:24-31
--
Michael L. Siemon Psalm 82:6: "I say, 'You are gods,
contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories sons of the Most High, all of you;
att!mhuxu!mls nevertheless, you shall die like men,
standard disclaimer and fall like any prince.'"