Goddess Worship: No.
January 22, 2007, 7:58 am
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
Wendy Doniger a University of Chicago proefssor, argues that Goddess worship isn’t the way to increase respect for women.
But I wouldn’t predict her enrollment in Opus Dei or Regnum Christi soon. Her basic reason: men are even more likely to fear and repress women’s power if they think that women have divine power, on top of it all too.
Her inbox must be . . . well, interesting, today. . . with messages from all points on the religious spectrum.
I’d like to think there is a little room to roam between Goddess Worship and Regnum Christi….:-)
J. Peter Nixon
So do most of us. . . but I do seem to recall that a lot of the anti-feminist critique of Catholic conservatives seemed to tie so called radical feminism with goddesses and goddess worship. .
I’d find a cite, but I have to go teach.
Okay, one cite: http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=611
If any one believes in goddesses, or gods for that matter, she/ he might do well to worship them. There as an AP story in the Gannett paper today to the effect that about twenty people who wanted to worship Zeus gathered yesterday at the temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens to conduct a service, so this is not purely a speculative point. The group seemed also to believe in Hera. But whether worshipping goddesses advances or retards the cause of justice for women would seem to be irrelevant.
I heard about that AP story, JF. I wonder if it was for real.
Irrelevant? I’m not sure. It seems to me that one reason to believe or not to believe in a god or goddess proposed as a candidate for belief is his/her ethical character. It’s used a lot in anti-Christian polemics against the Greek gods, if I remember correctly. By extension, the ethical character of the gods is seen, in some sense, in the ethical character of those who worship them.
If you think an appropriate component of ethical character is that the importance of affirming women’s equality with men, you might find it easier to believe in gods and in a system of worship that forwarded that belief.
Now, I agree with you to the extent that I don’t think you can just make up a god to further your own belief systems– I don’t think it works, at least if all this is conscious. Marx and Freud, at least say it’s part of the will of the class to domination or unconscious projection, respectively.
I do think, Cathy,that the events described in the AP story actually occurred. The participants were said to be commemorating the marriage of Zeus and Hera–not a happy one according to ancient gossip– and included priests and at least one priestess whose picture was featured in the version I saw, where she was described in politically correct language as a priest, but I cannot believe that is how the woman thought of herself. Anyone who believes in gods and goddesses will also speak of priests and priestesses. They identified themselves as Greeks, i.e., in their tongue Hellenes, and claimed the right to worship their gods. It is difficult to know what to make of people who engage in this sort of thing, but I have encountered some classicists who claim to be “pagans” in a religious sense.
My point about relevance was that you would be wise to worship gods and goddesses you believe in, at least if you think of them as anything like the divinities that the ancient Greeks worshipped. The ancients were uncomfortable with atheists, who were rare, because they thought that atheism would bring down the wrath of the gods, who expected to have their due. Such wrath in concrete form might well result in what we would call collateral damage. Consider what befalls Pentheus in the Bacchae because he merely disrespects Dionysus, or to Hippolytus because he fails to honor Aphrodite even though he honors Artemis. Euripides is particularly forthright on this subject. Perhaps modern devotees think only happy thoughts about their imagined divinities. Perhaps they are given to wishful thinking. As you suggest, if people unconsciously invent divinities to suit their needs, they suffer from a false consciousness or perhaps a false unconsciousness. If they do it consciously, they must seem merely dishonest. Wishing does not make things so.
In the ancient world the Christians did conduct a polemic against the gentile gods and goddesses along the lines that their behavior was inconsistent with their supposed divinity. I remember a particularly nasty story about Dionysus told by Gregory of Nazianzen. But Plato had already attacked beliefs about the gods and goddesses in the Republic. Apart from his metaphysical critique of artistic representation there is a moral critique especially directed to the way divinities are portrayed in Homer and Tragedy. On the other hand you have people saying in comedy, referring to Zeus’ womanizing, “If Zeus can do it, so can I”.
It seems likely to me that Christianity has certain elements embedded in its practice and customary thought that are not, once examined, easy to justify. Critical examination tends to give rise to defensive attempts at justification. When I was a boy, girls and women never went to church without a hat or head scarf, although some of the hats were rather scant. This custom, founded I think, so far as it was founded on anything in Scripture, on something in one of the Deutero-Pauline letters, is no longer even mentioned, much less practised. Would that this happy development of practice might be replicated in other areas!
Overall, I think our image of God is one of more tolerance than in ancient times. I’m reading the Old Testament, and Yahweh wanted his due too.
I suspect that at an early stage the Hebrews simply thought of YHWH as their national god. Only gradually did they realize that he was the only one and was nothing like the gods that the Gentiles had, who in fact did not even exist. The thing about YHWH ultimately is that he has no need of us and we can do nothing for him. He allows us to be like him. If we refuse, we lose.
“… he has no need of us , and we can do nothing for him. He allows us to be like him. If we refuse, we lose.”
I suppose I can’t disagree with that, though I’m not sure I would say so in just that way … or with that amount of certainty.
I think we are inextricably linked to God, which is why he created us, why he takes care of us and why he sent a redeemer for us.
God exists palpably only through us. That is, he exists on his own plane whether we believe or not. But it is evident to no one that he exists unless we manifest God’s love to others, no?
If that’s so, then the love of God that women show–in all the ways they show it–is the feminine side of the divine. The Goddess, if you want to put it in provocative terms.
And that’s my stab at any type of deep thought for today. Always feel out of my element in these types of discussions, but the exchanges above have been interesting.
God “has no need of us and we can do nothing for him.” Respectfully, I’m not convinced here. I’m no theologian or philosopher, but I think human creation and especially the Incarnation are good evidence of God’s need for us and how we (generically) give God joy. Perhaps Pure Love needs love and to be loved (as best I can put it in human terms).
Let me just say that God is infinitely loving, infinitely generous, but this is no way implies that he needs us. Need always implies imperfection and incompleteness. There is nothing uncomplete or imperfect about God.
Sorry for delay in reply……too many irons in the fire.
“Need always implies imperfection and incompleteness. There is nothing uncomplete or imperfect about God.”
I agree. Maybe the problem here is in our understanding of the words ‘imperfection’ and ‘incompleteness.’ Perhaps the human understanding is not God’s understanding.
I first began to think about this question after reading Harold Kushner’s WHEN BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE. His main point for purposes of this discussion can be found in a chapter heading, “God Can’t Do Everything, But He Can Do Some Important Things.”
There’s a passage in 2 CORINTHIANS 7-10 where Paul (or whoever) says he prayed three times to have God remove an affliction. The Lord replies, “My grace is all you need, for my power is greatest when you are weak.”
Other NT passages tell us of Christ’s humble birth, simple lifestyle, shameful treatment during his passion, and the ignominious circumstances of his death.
In Mt 19:23, we have, “Jesus then said to his disciples, ‘I assure you: it will be very hard for rich people to enter the Kingdom of heaven.’”
In another passage, Jesus tells us to “turn the cheek.”
And, of course, there is Jesus telling Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.”
Wealth, kingdom, etc. all suggest privilege and power in our human scheme of things. As we know, Jesus was anything but. He even disappointed those would-be followers who saw in him the guy who would kick out the Romans.
Finally, we have bishops in the 14th and 15th centuries assuming many of the trappings of Roman officialdom, far from the example set by Jesus himself (contemporary circumstances of that time notwithstanding).
While I agree that God is all-powerful, omniscient, etc., I think that perhaps out of human need or conceptual limits, we ascribe human meaning to such terms that have an entirely different meaning to God.
We say that God is Pure Love and Jesus is Love Incarnate. Love, of necessity and by definition, must be directed outward (this truth does not negate the fact that one must love oneself in order to love others). Love is other-centered. God created us out of love and sent us his Son out of love. Thus, by virtue of his love, God needs us.
God’s power and might lies precisely in his humility to acknowledge his need to have us as his lovers. Speaking for myself, that’s a refreshing and reassuring thought :)
You say:
“God’s power and might lies precisely in his humility to acknowledge his need to have us as his lovers. Speaking for myself, that’s a refreshing and reassuring thought.”
I’m afraid I think that that a god who needed us would not be God.
We disagree :)