Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, April 24, 1994 TAG: 9404220085
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Cody Lowe
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
No, it doesn't have anything to do with John Lennon. But the conference by that name held last November in Minnesota has caused about as much uproar in some churches as Lennon's famous quote that the Beatles were more popular than Christ with British teens.
The "Re-Imagining" event was billed as an opportunity for women to rethink the images of Christianity. To explore new faces of God, new names for God, new ways of thinking about God.
The whole idea can make traditionalists queasy. Why, they ask, after 2,000 years of Christianity and the preceding 4,000 or so years of Judaism did anybody need "new" images of God?
But some denominations were open to the idea that women - who may have felt excluded, even oppressed, by the predominant male imagery of God in the Bible - should be free to explore new expressions of the divine. Expressions that acknowledge that the female gender is fully a part of the "image of God" in which we all are created.
It really wasn't a very radical notion. Even the most conservative Christian theology I know recognizes that God is not male. Though we may speak of "him," we understand that God transcends the limitations of gender.
Yet, because the Bible generally speaks of God in male images, some feel the hot breath of heresy in any attempt to offer substitutes.
And for many Christians, Jesus' use of the word "Abba" or "Father" to refer to God precludes the use of the word "Mother" for the deity.
This most recent conference on the subject, however, went beyond the usual debate on this subject. Some of the conference leaders - in their zeal to find new images - managed to upset broad segments of mainstream denominations that generally would not have even noticed it.
It was the Good News magazine of the United Methodist Church and Presbyterian Layman of the Presbyterian Church (USA) - both publications representing conservative constituencies in their denominations - that latched onto some of the more extreme language of the conference and labeled it heresy. Writers called for the heads of the denominational leaders who had participated in the conference and helped pay for it.
Though conservatives had problems with much of the theology presented at the conference, there were a few specifics - now widely described - that set them and mainstream Christians off.
Primarily, there was the extensive use of the image of "Sophia." That Greek name for wisdom is used in the Bible as an attribute of God in a few references, particularly Proverbs 8:22-31. Conference defenders said the name was used only as a metaphor. Critics said the name was used in ways that sounded as if participants were worshiping a goddess named "Sophia" in place of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Then there was the "blessing over milk and honey" that reportedly closely followed the form and function of the Lord's Supper, but without any reference to the Trinity. It reportedly included a "prayer" that said: "Our maker Sophia, we are women in your image.... With the hot blood of our wombs we give form to new life.... Sophia, creator God, let your milk and honey flow.... With nectar between our thighs we invite a lover, we birth a child; with our warm body fluids we remind the world of its pleasures and sensations.... We celebrate the sweat that pours from us during our labors.... We celebrate our bodiliness, our physicality, the sensations of pleasure, our oneness with earth and water."
And if anything further was needed to upset the orthodox, there was one speaker's contention that "I don't think we need a doctrine of atonement at all. I don't think we need folks hanging on crosses and blood dripping and weird stuff."
The critics, for the most part, didn't attempt to put any of this in context. But plainly some of that is radical stuff in any context.
Conference defenders probably are right in their contention that some of the heated opposition came from men who were opposed to any feminist agenda and who were offended by the overt sensuality of some of the material.
Some of the criticism was much deeper and more thoughtful than that, however. Those who have heard about the conference but have no particular conservative or liberal agenda have been disturbed by the quotes. Those who contributed money through their denominations to pay for the event want to be clear that it didn't attempt to subvert teachings they hold as sacred.
Conference defenders did themselves no favors in their public responses to the criticism. Most fell into the categories of "That was taken out of context," "We're hurt by these vicious attacks," and "Conservative men who want to oppress us have no right to comment on us."
Even if there is some truth in those, concerned church members who care deeply about their faith deserved more. They deserved a reasoned explanation of the conference - of the "Sophia" references, of the doctrinal debate, of the insights and inspiration some participants got out of it.
Some people don't want to talk, of course. A spokesman for the Methodists' Good News group has been quoted as saying, "This is not a time for dialogue but for church discipline."
A spokeswoman for Church Women United, a conference co-sponsor, said, "Men need to silence this kind of thing to be in control."
With any luck, other people who are willing to be a little more open, more trusting, more Christian can find ways to listen to each other as they seek the spirit of wisdom.
Cody Lowe reports on religion and ethics for the Roanoke Times & World-News.
by CNB