In the history of religion, one is quick to notice that many of the deities are feminine. In fact, the earliest practices of religion and icons of god are fertility cults that depect the god(s) as feminine.
Something that many Protestant Christians, Jews, and Muslims take for granted is our masculine language for God. Within our sacred texts God is often portrayed as husband and/or Father. While feminine attributes are used and traditionally feminine qualities uplifted, the language of God is most often masculine in our texts. In the mid-20th century, the masculine language of God was called to the carpet.
What is taken for granted is that throughout history this masculine dominance of the Abrahamic faiths has been challenged. Textual and extra-textual evidence clearly demonstrates that priests and common folk alike wanted to give the LORD a female consort. Yet, the text resists this.Despite the numerous cultural pressures: the Canaanites, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, all have pantheons including feminine deities. Time and time again we see these outside pressures affecting beliefs. Yet, the text resisted these pressures. There are no female names for the LORD; furthermore, the LORD has no female consort.
Why? Why were the Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, so resistant to the feminine divine? Each of these faiths presented rights to women...often above that of the surrounding cultures. Yet, they resisted.
Why? I'd love to hear your thoughts. What about this faith of the LORD (all worship the God named the LORD even if quite differently)? Why has it been so resistant to the feminine divine? Should our masculine language of God be viewed as an anachronism to be left behind? Or, is it possible that this masculine language of God is something unique to be treasured? What do you think?
2 comments:
It seems to me that it might begin with the fact that the priests and scribes were all men and wanted it to stay that way. The problem only perpetuated itself as society became more and more patriarchal. Where that started is hard to say exactly. Many fathers of the early church declared that if Jesus, son of God, came to earth as a male figure, God must regard males more than females. Somehow the (male) pastors just glossed over the roles of the women in the gospels until the last 50 years or so when women finally got into the pulpits and enlightened their congregations. Though as a woman in ministry, I seem to find that, oddly enough, it's often older women who think that the woman's place is behind her husband, not in front of a congregation.
I thought Thomas Cahill's book, "The Gifts of the Jews," had some good insights into the beginnings of the tradition, even though it's from an historical standpoint rather than religious. I've just started his book on the life and era of Christ called "Desire of the Everlasting Hills," I'll be interested to see if it says anything on the subject.
I wonder if it has something to do with the way salvation history played out from the Christian perspective.
God weds humanity through a peasant girl and the offspring begins a "blended family" in which Jesus claims kinship with all and shares the inheritance of all God's good gifts.
Post a Comment