This was initially posted on August 3, 2105
At this time I’m publishing an early work on feminine language for God that I wrote with Emma Trout on the first Convention of Girls Theologians in 1971. Extremely contested on the convention, this essay is a foreshadowing of my subsequent work on the necessity for feminine imagery for divinity.
Rereading this essay greater than 4 many years later, I’m gratified to see that although we started our essay with the picture of God giving start (which I nonetheless view as an vital picture), Emma and I had been conscious of the hazard that feminine imagery for God may reinforce “a false sexual polarity.” We insisted then that feminine imagery for God should not repeat intercourse position stereotypes, however reasonably should shatter them.
I’m stunned that we additionally talked about the necessity for a brand new non-static or course of metaphysic, a theme I did pursue till I wrote Rebirth of the Goddess after which She Who Modifications a number of many years later.
Whereas the references within the essay are dated, the problems it raises will not be. Although many mainline Christian and Jewish communities have adopted inclusive language, lively experimentation with feminine language for God is relegated to the fringes of those teams. And whereas Goddess feminists resist gender stereotypes, some New Age academics and Neo-Pagan teams perpetuate the concept that the Divine Female is receptive, loving, and giving, whereas the Divine Masculine is lively, assertive, and aggressive.
ALTERNATIVE IMAGES OF GOD: COMMUNAL THEOLOGY BY CAROL CHRIST AND EMMA TROUT
How significantly better for theology to conceive of God the Creator as pregnant with the world, giving start to it and nourishing it, than of God the divine Watchmaker who set the machine ticking hundreds of thousands of years in the past. — Penelope Washbourne Chen in “Rediscovering the Female in God” The Tower alumni journal
Regardless that we all know that God Himself isn’t actually a male, we’ve got made use of no different photographs in speaking about Him. As Mary Daly has identified, photographs have a method of perpetuating themselves though we conceptually know higher. (“After the Demise of God the Father”) The picture of God as a male authority determine serves to legitimize the constructions of subordination (oppression) of ladies to (by) males. The issue is to conceive God in such a method that God’s masculinity doesn’t perform as a legitimation system for the oppression of ladies.
The imaging of God as male has two elements: 1) the poverty of our language, and a pair of) the impoverishing of our imaginative and prescient of God by unique use of traits which our tradition has attributed to and restricted to the male in conceptualizing and imaging God. Within the first of those two elements we discover photographs of God as Father, King, Lord; our language has no pronoun which is ready to embrace and/or transcend each sexes. Our language forces us to consider God as male; we’d like phrases like “she-he,” “father-mother,” “daughter-son,” “brother-sister.” Concerning the second facet: within the Western custom, notably the Christian theological custom our concepts and pictures have been impoverished by virtually unique use of “male” traits in conceptualizing and imaging God.
For instance, initiative, transcendence, authority, primacy, management, management and order have all been conceived in static, self-sufficient, abstractly rational phrases, in correspondence with masculine stereotypes. Another picture of God urged by Penelope Washbourne Chen, imaging God as pregnant, giving start to, and nurturing the world, presents us with a extra dynamic method of conceiving God. Philosophically, this picture of God would discover expression within the neo-classical metaphysics or course of view of actuality of Whitehead and Hartshorne, reasonably than the static ontology of the Greek custom.
. . .
Allow us to now flip to the options. Underlying the issue of selecting among the many different conceptions/photographs of God is the issue of the analysis of sexual variations. If, for instance, one believes sexual variations are a basic polarity in human expertise, she is going to discover it acceptable to see this polarity mirrored within the deity. If, however, one doesn’t see sexual variations as a basic polarity, she might be cautious of correcting a false male picture/idea of God by introducing a “feminine” ingredient which can serve to additional legitimize a false sexual polarity.
If one is open to the likelihood that sexual variations might not be basic, the true query is how you can shatter the idol of a male deity with out both 1) substituting a reverse idol of a feminine deity, or 2) legitimizing a false sexual polarity.
Learn your entire essay Various Photographs of God-Carol P. Christ & Emma Trout (1971).
Images of Carol talking on the Convention of Girls Theologians and of the Convention Members from the Alverno Faculty archives. Because of Sarah Shutkin for offering a replica of the essay from the Alverno Faculty Library Archives.
