Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!tittle
From: gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.EDU (Gretchen Chapman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: feminist spiritualty
Message-ID: <8907011558.AA19050@cattell.psych.upenn.edu>
Date: 1 Jul 89 16:08:21 GMT
Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu
Lines: 82
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu


	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.edu