"The
Sacred Feminine"
A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear
Sunday, March 21, 2004
All
With regard to the subject of God, no claim seems to me more obviously true than
that "we human beings create our Gods in our own image." We always
have, and I suppose we always will. What we imagine God to be has far more to
do with our own personal and cultural experiences, and far less to do with any
direct or objective experience. What any person says about God tells
us more about that person than it does about God.
A person with authoritarian values in life - that is, someone who blindly obeys those in authority or expects others to do so - tends to imagine God to be authoritarian and controlling. A person who is judgmental expects God to be the harshest judge. A person who is compassionate toward others expects God to be compassionate and understanding. We create our Gods in our own image.
This is also true of cultural differences. In the Western world, God is a bit of a technocrat, fiddling around with nature, and at the controls of all cosmic powers, causing a hurricane over there, a sunny day at the beach over here, or a plague or flood that has some cosmic purpose. The Eastern Gods are far less spectacular and dramatic, far less specialized in their technical talents. The blessings and disasters of nature are not in the control of the Eastern Gods; rather, those Gods simply help people learn how to live and cope with nature's blessings and disasters. The Western value of controlling nature, and the Eastern value of embracing nature are each reflected in their respective images of God. We create our Gods in our own image.
This is not said to be critical of God, mind you; it is simply an observation about how human beings seem to think about God. If it were otherwise - if our thinking about God had a direct connection to how God really may be, the many images of God the world over wouldn't be as different as they are. The mixture of images is complex and confusing. It occurs to me, for example, that the vengeful God of a Christian fundamentalist -- has far more in common with the vengeful God of an Islamic fundamentalist than it does with a compassionate God found in other parts of Christianity.
I wish to focus on one image of God, and that is the image that God is male. I approach this subject fully aware that many in this room may be of the opinion that any talk about God is pointless. I disagree. All surveys show that something above 90% of all Americans affirm some image of God. And if my supposition is correct, that people create Gods in their own image, then we can learn quite a bit about our society by learning about our society's image of God.
In our society, one of the dominant images of God is that God is male. This fact is revealed in the language we use to describe God. The phrase "God the Father" is found within nearly all official church creeds. But other similar language abounds: "King" and "Lord" are good examples of this. And, of course, it is absolutely shocking, if not blasphemous, for us to use anything other than male pronouns for God: "God-he," or "God-his." Any talk about God as "she" or, for that matter, as "they" or "it" typically opens oneself to general ridicule from most of the population.
On the face of it, it seems utterly absurd to consider God as having any gender at all. Does God have chromosomes? Hormones? Genitals? The very idea is positively silly, foolish and preposterous. Perhaps, some might be saying, the whole idea of God itself is silly, foolish and preposterous. But that is beside the point here. We create our Gods in our own image, so what does it mean that our society's image of God is male? Surely there are significant implications to be drawn from this rather bizarre but true fact.
At this point, some people typically raise a voice in protest, saying that "of course no one really believes that God is a man. That's just the language that we use, because its traditional and its handy. Of course we know that God is beyond gender, and that it is just as authentic to consider God in feminine terms as it is in masculine ones. The fact that we tend to use masculine language to describe God isn't at all significant."
In the Plastic Surgery ward of the University of Chicago Hospital, where I worked as a Chaplain for a while during seminary, they perform a particular series of operations which are called there by the gentle name of "gender reassignment." "Gender reassignment" is, of course a tender euphemism for sex change operations - patients who once were men, but now becoming women, or who once were women and are now becoming men.
It seems that in the last couple of decades, there have been a number of people who are advocating a gender reassignment operation on God. After several thousand years of existence as a man, some would now have God take on female characteristics.
In fact, though, this would prove to be a second such operation for God. It
turns out that for the first ten or twenty thousand years of human history, the
Western God was believed to be female. Only about two or three thousand years
ago God for the Western world became a man. Now, some say, it is time to have
that perception changed. .
Anthropologists point out that an exclusively male image of God is a relatively recent phenomenon. In fact, in ancient times, it was far more common to conceive of God in feminine images, or at least to consider many different Gods of both genders.
The human concept of God was first linked, I suppose, to the act of creation. The original God was the Creator God. And in those days, long before they solved the mystery of how babies are conceived, which sex do you presume they believed to hold the mysterious powers of creation? It couldn't have been men. Men, as far as they knew, had nothing to do with creation - that was the exclusive prerogative of women. And to the extent that God represented the cosmic powers of creation, God was female. We create our Gods in our own image.
Not only was the female image of God prevalent in ancient religions, but it
is also commonly found within many non-Western religions. Elaine Pagels, a
biblical scholar at Princeton University, observes that, "the absence of
feminine symbolism of God marks Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in striking
contrast to the world's other religious traditions, whether in Egypt,
Babylonia, Greece, and Rome or Africa, Polynesia, India, and North
America."
In fact, nearly all research shows that our earliest evidence of religion represents the sacred and divine in feminine terms. Archeological evidence predating written history establishes an almost universal understanding of the sacred as having feminine characteristics.
To the extent religions arose around a sense of the sacredness of life, it is only reasonable that feminine symbolism would represent the source of life. For example, the idea of creation itself was, before biology was understood, entirely associated with the female. The cycle of life, not just human but animal and vegetation, was represented in the fertility of the female.
Feminine symbolism took on sacred meaning. Religions that revered nature associated nature with life itself, and the source of life they knew to be female. There is also evidence that in these civilizations, the clergy class was primarily female. Cultures were not necessarily matriarchal, the way they have been patriarchal in recent centuries with men ruling over women, but rather the evidence shows much more of an egalitarian society, with power shared between the sexes. Evidence also shows that civilizations were more peaceful toward each other. There were fewer competitions for power.
One of the most documented of these civilizations was found on the Greek
Island of Crete at around 6000 B.C. Nicholas Platon was the main archeologist
who unearthed the ruins in the twentieth century, and he wrote extensively on
that civilization. Of the religion of that society, he wrote this:
"The whole of life was pervaded by an ardent faith in the goddess
Nature, the source of all creation and harmony. This lead to
a love of peace, a horror of tyranny, and a respect for the law. Even
among the ruling classes personal ambition seems to have been unknown; nowhere
do we find the name of an author attached to a work of art, nor
a record of the deeds of a ruler."
For thousands of years, then, the human concept of the divine possessed a far more feminine face than masculine one. But then, something happened. Something happened to change all that.
Anthropologists tell us that the higher civilizations around the
Over the next centuries, the religions in the region began changing to a
monotheism that featured a male God. One can see the gradual transformation,
for example, in
By the time of the birth of Christianity, the traditions of Goddess worship, the sacred feminine, were disappearing. The memory of them was still strong, and the church made a strong effort to suppress expressions of the sacred feminine. In Christianity, only males are divine. Even Mary, the "mother of God," was merely mortal. The priesthood was restricted to males, and the Bible is filled with statements of female inferiority - mostly from Paul. Husbands are the head of the family, and women are to obey them. Women are prohibited from speaking in church, and so forth.
But there is a curious conclusion drawn from analyzing the gospels: Jesus does not say anything critical of women. Quite to the contrary, he was criticized by his disciples for befriending women, and he did not condone the common practice of stoning women who were accused of adultery. Perhaps even more to the point, Jesus' message was consistent with the values inherent in the sacred feminine tradition: that of compassion and love and acceptance. He rejected the dominant values of his own society that honored aggressiveness and power. "This new commandment I bring unto you," he said, "that you love one another."
One of the more curious episodes in Christian history is the discovery of the Gnostic gospels. An early Christian faction known as the Gnostics expressed very different ideas from the faction that eventually gained power over the church. The Gnostics wrote their own stories of Jesus, stories that were written at about the same time, or even earlier, than what later was to become the biblical accounts. The Gnostic gospels were so different in their teachings that by the third century, the church leaders ordered all copies of Gnostic writings destroyed. It was until 1945 that a set of these writings were discovered hidden in a cave for nearly 2000 years.
There are many startling discoveries in these documents, some of which are very relevant to our concern about the "sacred feminine." For one thing, women were accepted as Christian clergy. For another thing, it was obvious that Mary Magdalene, whom the Catholic church later falsely declared a "prostitute," was especially close to Jesus, perhaps his closest confidant, and there is some evidence that they may have been married.
Some documents portray a surprising acceptance of the sacred feminine: a
divine Mother and Father. Here is the beginning of one of the prayers given in
a Gnostic gospel:
"From Thee, Father, and through Thee, Mother, Parents of the divine
being. . . ."
It is easy to see why the church worked hard to suppress the teachings of
this Christian movement. It seemed to them that such teachings acknowledged the
ancient Goddess tradition, honoring the sacred feminine, which was believed a
threat to the power of the established patriarchal church.
Having looked at the history of how God has been perceived over time, and noting that in recent years there has been a movement to reconnect our image of God with the sacred feminine, I would like to consider a few implications if we are able to do this.
Over the last few decades, largely at the inspiration of feminist voices, substantial research has been done toward discovering the differences between the way women view the world and the way men do. What I am about to do is offer a fairly gross generalization of those differences, and they should not be taken either literally or universally, for there are significant exceptions to everything I'm about to say. Nevertheless, some generalizations can be made.
In prioritizing a list of values, for example, men are more inclined to approach problem-solving through applying rules, and women are more inclined to solve problems by solving relationships. Men tend to see power as a primary basis for relationship, whereas women tend to downplay the importance of power. Perhaps the main difference that has been identified is that men tend to value independence much more highly than women, and women tend to value intimacy much more highly then men.
Again, these are generalizations, and it is true that some women display more of these masculine characteristics than some men do, and vice versa. And, I hasten to add, it is not assumed that these characteristics are naturally or genetically attached to each gender, but may be largely culturally learned. But this is a brief idea of what is involved when it is suggested someone is "in touch with their feminine side."
So what do these generalizations imply about our concepts of God. What would our idea of God look like, if we considered God to be in touch with a sacred feminine side? If we project these different values onto God, or some divine being, we come up with a vastly different image than we are used to having.
The male God which has dominated Western society for so long is first and foremost a God of power. If we were to ask for descriptions of our society's God, probably the first response we would think of would relate to some issue of "power." "God is all-powerful," we say. Omnipotent. Prayers to this God often begin with the salutation, "Almighty God," or "Almighty Father." And prayers may end with some variation on this theme: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen."
A sense of the Sacred Feminine would alter our view of divine power and omnipotence. Power is competitive by nature, and the Sacred Feminine honors relationships built on cooperation rather than competition. God the Father, who, among other things is the ultimate disciplinarian, may be replaced by God the older brother or sister, who instead of wielding power over us and keeping us in our place prefers to give us direction and understanding.
The male God which has dominated Western society for so long is also in the role of Father as a "protector." God keeps us from harm if we ask "him" to, and if we show proper deference and respect, as we would a father. God the Father answers our prayers of petition for protection against disease and disaster and ruin. All we need is to ask, and Father provides. Father provides, that is, if we are on good terms with him. But woe unto the child who does not give proper homage to the Father, for that child has no protection.
A sense of the Sacred Feminine transforms God from a protector to a
comforter. Having forsaken the image of a God with absolute power, the
feminized God cannot step in to protect us against all forms of evil which may
come our way. God is no longer unlimited in power to do anything. But instead,
this God provides support and consolation and encouragement to face the
diseases and disasters and failures of life.
As I say, one of the key differences identified in masculine and feminine world-views is the extent to which the male tends to value independence over intimacy and the female values intimacy over independence. This distinction can also be seen projected onto the Gods which we create in our own image.
In theology, a traditional distinction is drawn between a God of "transcendence" and a God of "immanence." The word "transcendence" comes from the Latin meaning "to cross a boundary," so that there exists a boundary between us and a God who is transcendent. A transcendent God is one who is not of this world, who transcends this world, though ruling over it. A transcendent God is "Our Father, who art in Heaven," and therefore ultimately foreign to us, for we cannot enter God's world (in this life, at least), only God can enter ours. In short, a transcendent God is completely independent from us, outside of us.
An "immanent" God, on the other hand, is of our world, is part of this world, and in fact is part of us. The word "immanent" comes from the Latin meaning "to inhabit," so that an immanent God inhabits not only our world, but inhabits us as well. There is no boundary separating us from an immanent God. In other words, the immanent God is intimately a part of us.
The image of an immanent God is found in Alice Walker's novel The Color Purple, when the character Shug says, "Here's the thing, the thing I believe. God is inside you and inside everybody else. You come into the world with God. But only them that search for it inside find it."
It is easy to see the influence of the Sacred Feminine in this aspect of our
perception of the divine. A sense of the Sacred Feminine will erase boundaries
betwen the human and the divine, invoking, instead, God's immanence - that is,
emphasizing God's intimacy with us, rather than independence from us.
There is a strong movement in many parts of Western religion to reclaim what can be called "the Sacred Feminine." These voices are being heard. I am not about to predict the death of God the Father and the new reign of God the Mother. Our culture changes slowly and sometimes unpredictably, and the male image of God is about as deeply ingrained in our culture as anything.
For me, though, it has been a long time since the image of God the Father has made even the remotest sense. The basic picture of God as Judge or Ruler or King has seemed to me a thorough fantasy. For me, my imagination doesn't stretch far enough to consider a God with any human attributes, and that would be as true of God the Mother as well as God the Father.
But the call for honoring the "Sacred Feminine" isn't necessarily wanting to substitute one image for the other. Rather, it is a call for a corrective, for balance. We create our Gods in our own image, and the worship of an exclusively male God has had consequences on the status of women in society. As our society slowly embraces the equal value of women - in voting, in education, in the workforce, even in politics - it is reasonable to have our most fundamental ideas, such as the idea of God, broaden to embrace the Sacred Feminine.
It is corrective, not gender-reassigning, that many are advocating. It is an attempt to urge our religious thinking away from its oppressive traditions, to encourage religious thought to be consistent with our social thought.
Personally, I am no more inclined to worship God the Mother than I have been to worship God the Father. My own inclination is to resist the personification of any absolutes. It is hard for me to conceive of God having any human characteristics, unless God shares in all of our characteristics. I do not reject out of hand the projection of our values onto a cosmic symbol or figure, which might be called "God." After all, that seems to be a very natural thing for humans to do. But when, in creating that God, we impose on it our own biases and failings, we should welcome any attempt to correct that image.
Embracing the Sacred Feminine is a corrective that I believe to be
reasonable, if not important. If we are, and evidently we are, going to create
our Gods in our own image, it is important to have that creation be to emulate
and model our best image, our wholeness, and not simply rely on outdated ones.
It is important to continue to look toward growth, reassessment, and
open-mindedness, no matter what gender is associated with those values.