gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.EDU (Gretchen Chapman) (07/01/89)
In article <42102@bbn.COM>, Richard Shapiro writes that
feminist/feminine spirituality might not be such a great idea because
it preserves the idea that there are certain characteristics of
maleness or femaleness that are always true and therefore inescapable.
(I hope that's a fair paraphrase.) Although I think that argument has
a lot of merit, it may be one-sided. I will try to state what I see
as the advantages of feminist spirituality (Sophia in particular) and
see if that outweighs the disadvantage of preserving gender roles.
I think that feminist spirituality can most broadly be defined
as a spirituality which upholds feminist principles and is helpful to
feminist women and men. For me, sexism has been most apparent in
religious circles. God is almost always male, and as Virginia Ramey
Mollenkott points out (somewhere, maybe in *The Divine Feminine*), if
God is male, then males are godly (moreso than females). If God is
seen as equally male and female, the there is implicit divine approval
of power for all genders. Therefore, a feminist spirituality needs to
have a feminine divine figure to balance the existing male divine
figure(s). Sophia is a good example of such a figure. She exists in
a relationship with a male figure, either Yahweh (i.e. Proverbs
8:27-31) or Jesus (1 Cor 1:30). The same could be said for the
Goddess and Consort in Wicca. Those of us who saw God as male for a
very long time may choose to concentrate on the female God for a time,
but I do not think that is a permenant solution.
Why get into all this sloppy polytheism? Why not have one
gender-free God? I think that a gender-free God is not very well
personified. God created humans in God's own image, male and female
(Genesis 1:27); therefore being male and female must be an important
part of who God is. I would have trouble relating to a gender-free
human, and also to a gender-free God. The whole purpose of religion
is to make the divine accessible and understandable. We understand
gender-free things like trees, rocks, and light; when we image God
this way, then God is gender-free. But when we image God as a person,
then God must have a gender. In order to be inclusive, we must have
many person-images. Sophia is one of my favorite person-images
because she fills in where a lot of other images are incomplete.
Once we have a gender-specific God, we take the risk that God
will provide a gender-specific role model. There are two solutions,
both of which uphold feminist ideals. First, let the feminine divine
provide a non-traditional role model for women. Sophia does this. In
Proverbs she stands on the street corner and yells at everyone because
they are not listening to her. In another passage she tells God what
to do. She is also a nurturer, teacher, and lover; but I think that is
because those are good qualities, not because they are feminine
qualities. If Sophia posseses traits that we do not find particularly
feminist, I think it is because feminine images of God (or masculine)
often reflect a description of the traits women have or had when the
image was developed. Even if there are "natural" female traits, we
need not commit the naturalistic fallacy. To say that women "are" a
certain way does no imply that they *should* be that way. If Sophia
is a nuturer, that does not imply that all women, or only women, are
required to fill that role. (Of course to the extent that people
do commit this fallacy, divine gender roles might still be dangerous.)
Second, we must emphasize that women can benfit from both male and
female images of God, and men can do the same. A rather banal example
of this is in the Wisdom of Solomon when the speaker (a man) desired
Sophia to be his spouse. On a loftier plane, I know several men who
have very meaningful relationships with Sophia, which do not center on
a romantic metaphor.
Feminist spirituality frequently emphasizes the importance of
current experience (instead of just tradition, the Bible, etc.). I
think Sophia's character is still being developed by those people who
are in relationship with her. If her personification of a given trait
becomes harmful, then we can start thinking about her differently.
The figure of Sophia developed in Judiasm several centuries BCE
because the current image of Yahweh the protector of Israel was not
working. The image of Sophia, the God/dess of all people (not just
Israel) was developed to explain why Israel was getting womped on by
other nations. The idea that we can change images of God to suit our
current needs is disconcerting, but we wouldn't be the first to do it.
I am coming from a Christian perspective. I think I would
still uphold the importance of feminist spirituality if I were part of
another religious tradition, but perhaps some nonchristians will have
more to say about this.
As an epilogue, I don't know anything about The Woman's
Encyclopedia of Myths & Secrets, and can't comment on its quality. I
can, with confidence, recomment *Sophia: The Future of Feminist
Spirituality* by Susan Cady, Marian Ronan, and Hal Taussig, published
by Harper and Row (1986).
Gretchen Chapman
gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.eduturpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) (07/03/89)
In article <8907011558.AA19050@cattell.psych.upenn.edu>, gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.EDU (Gretchen Chapman) writes: > ... I will try to state what I see > as the advantages of feminist spirituality (Sophia in particular) ... > ... Therefore, a feminist spirituality needs to > have a feminine divine figure ... > ... Why not have one gender-free God? I think that a gender-free > God is not very well personified. ... Frequently I read writers who, it seems to me, are blatantly involved in the business of creating a new theology. What surprises me is that they, and so many of their readers, take their attempts seriously. If gods or goddesses exists, perhaps the one thing that is certain about them is that their characteristics are not determined by people's imaginings. Traditional religions understand at least this. If you could convince the traditional Christian that the miracles of the Bible are all just someone's fantasies [1], or an ancient Greek that the gods were just men's imaginings, then they both would have the good sense to realize that their religions are false. So how can one possibly take seriously a religion that one knows is pure fantasy because one is making it up as one goes along? Or does the writer, perhaps, claim to be a prophet, someone who speaks for the god(desses)? In this case, there is no need to rationalize *why* one sees the gods and goddesses the way one does, since there is no way to argue against someone who possesses Revealed Truth. (However, good prophets do tell their followers how to distinguish them from false prophets.) I see no in-between here -- either the author is claiming to possess Revealed Truth, or it's all cow dung. > Why get into all this sloppy polytheism? Why get into theism at all? What you make up may be more appealing, more comforting, and less sexist than all the religions that have been made up in the past, but there is no reason to think it will be any more true. Or does this matter? Russell [1] This is why traditional Christians reject what archaeologists and historians teach about the origins of Judaism. They know that admitting to political and social origins for a religion belies its claim to truth.
bloch%mandrill@ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch) (07/04/89)
gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.EDU (Gretchen Chapman) writes: >The figure of Sophia developed in Judiasm several centuries BCE >because the current image of Yahweh the protector of Israel was not >working. The image of Sophia, the God/dess of all people (not just >Israel) was developed to explain why Israel was getting womped on by >other nations. The idea that we can change images of God to suit our >current needs is disconcerting, but we wouldn't be the first to do it. and turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) responds (apparently without noticing the last sentence above): >Frequently I read writers who, it seems to me, are blatantly involved >in the business of creating a new theology. What surprises me is that >they, and so many of their readers, take their attempts seriously. > >If gods or goddesses exists, perhaps the one thing that is certain >about them is that their characteristics are not determined by >people's imaginings. >... how can >one possibly take seriously a religion that one knows is pure fantasy >because one is making it up as one goes along? We've just had this discussion in rec.music.gaffa (don't ask me how it got started there!) We were talking about absolute right and wrong ethics, and somebody quoted Allan Bloom's charge that modern society is so relativist that it has no roots, that the only thing we accept as an absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths. Somebody else quoted Hubert Dreyfus's response to Bloom that even complaining about relativism can only be done by a relativist, for the complaint is against people's belief that they can choose their ethics (their theology, whatever), and one does not complain about something that was writ in the stars. In short, once the cat's out of the bag, it won't go back in. With regard to Russell's final question, the fact that people choose and change religions with reasonable frequency already makes it impossible to take ANY religion seriously, if "take seriously" means "accept as Absolute Truth". At least a religion you're making up as you go along doesn't kid you or claim to be Absolute Truth; it only claims to be a view of the world that works for the person involved. Oh, and by the way, IS it inconceivable that god(desse)s could "really exist", yet be plastic in form, significantly affected by people's imaginings about them? Or if you don't like that one, is it possible that the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Deity, are out there, but are too complex for a human mind to grasp, so we just decide what limited view of them to take? "The above opinions are my own. But that's just my opinion." Stephen Bloch
marla@Sun.COM (Marla Parker) (07/06/89)
Whenever a religious person starts talking about her faith, I can't help but brace myself. So many devout people are yammering idiots, I always expect the worst. So, Thank You Gretchen for writing such a coherent, well-reasoned explanation of your interest in feminist spirituality. I enjoyed reading it, even though I'm not particularly interested in feminist spirituality, much less Christianity. In article <5725@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) writes: >Frequently I read writers who, it seems to me, are blatantly involved >in the business of creating a new theology. What surprises me is that >they, and so many of their readers, take their attempts seriously. Why is this surprising? Who are you to say that one of them or all of them have not discovered some sort of divine Truth? Just because I am comfortable believing in a hot & cold universe that randomly generates life here and there once in an eon does not mean that everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. A sucker is born every day, you may think, but to quote a Christian cousin of mine, "I'd rather be a happy Christian than an unhappy athiest," comparing himself to my dad. My dad is a happy athiest, in fact, but the point is, MY COUSIN WOULD BE A VERY UNHAPPY ATHIEST, I'm certain. Yet I do not think my cousin or my dad is a fool. I'm glad their happy. My point for Russell is, who are you to look down on the beliefs of others? Some of history's greatest minds have devoted their lives to studying religion - do you scoff at them as well? I believe in faith, that most people have a fundamental need to believe in *something*. I recognize this need in myself, and I do not think it is something anybody should be ashamed of. As Gretchen wrote, "a gender-free God is not very well personified," and again, most people need to personify thier god in order to relate to it and believe in it. So I think that Sophia could be a great help to open-minded Christian women. (And no, you cynics, that is not an oxymoron.) Gretchen also wrote: >The idea that we can change images of God to suit our >current needs is disconcerting, but we wouldn't be the first to do it. I don't think this should be disconcerting. Here is a more comfortable way to say the same thing. If there is a God, then it is certainly beyond human understanding at this point in our evolution (biological, spiritual, whatever). By changing the images of God to suit your current needs, you are just exploring the unknown, and trying to get closer to whatever truth might be. It could be a bum path, it could be right, but each person has to decide that individually. Marla Parker (415)336-2538 marla@sun.com
carolf@uunet.uu.net (Carol Freinkel) (07/08/89)
In article <12471@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> bloch%mandrill.UUCP@ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch) writes: > >Oh, and by the way, IS it inconceivable that god(desse)s could "really >exist", yet be plastic in form, significantly affected by people's >imaginings about them? Or if you don't like that one, is it possible >that the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Deity, are out there, but are too >complex for a human mind to grasp, so we just decide what limited view >of them to take? Or perhaps god(desse)s are within and without us, part of us and independent of us, manifested both within and without? In the words of a song: Oh, Great Spirit, earth, sun, sky and sea, you are inside and all around me... As Starhawk said, if you want to see an image of the God(dess), just turn and look at the person next to you. Or look at yourself in the mirror. As you can see, immanent deities manifest in many forms. It's the transcendent deities that always seem to claim to be the one-and-only.