Recently I read an article in our local paper about the feminization of religion. This link is some of the source material for that article. In particular:
The God of Judaism and the Father of Jesus Christ was masculine because he was a holy God, which meant he was separate from Creation. The Hebrew word for “holy” is kaddosh, “separate.” The Jews came to know the nature of God through his actions, which were actions of separating. He separated a people, the Jews, from the pagan nations; he separated light from darkness, the land from the sea. He created by separating, and his people were a separate people, set apart from the rest of the world.
Jesus’ actions were those of God. ... He came not to bring peace, but a sword that divides.
Although the article focused on Christianity, the success of men's groups like "Promise Keepers" and the general downward trend of male attendance in churches - I see the same effect impacting Jewish congregations. In the Conservative Movement lately there has been a concerted effort at egalitarianism, not simply including women in all aspects of the faith but also a conscious effort to neuter God. This is not about the interchangeable use of the pronouns 'he' and 'she' for God, rather the removal of English terms such as 'Lord' and 'Master' - essentially masculine attributes that are intrinsic to a relationship with God. Instead of Man comprised of the likeness of God that is masculine and feminine, we now seem to be moving to a feminine God with little relevance to men. During services, I read and hear the 'politically correct' texts in English but in our Prayerbook the opposing pages are in original Hebrew (and a little Aramaic). Due to Jewish tradition the 'powers that be' don't dare modify the Hebrew text so the English translations grow farther and farther apart. When I hear the English text I look down and think, 'it doesn't say that!'. To my masculine ears the power and beauty of the text is being lost and indeed the meaning is being changed. It seems that some Christian men realize this as well as they contend with the 'gentle Jesus' image that seems to be a mainstay of modern Christianity. In the Jewish Conservative Movement there is both a dread of the declining membership along with the unwillingness to reconsider this stance. (The more liberal Reform Movement is already a ghost of its former self whereas the more masculine Orthodox Movement continues to grow.)
For any faith that preaches diversity to reject essential masculinity seems self defeating. A simple test might be, 'does you congregation believe that there is a time for war and a time for peace'?
Christy reveals how a succesful pastor from Grand Rapids seems to be both masculine and despicable.
Stuart,
Very good post. I will try to comment on my blog very soon.
For a short, morning, pre-work reply, I'll just mention I also saw this self-defeating trend
http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/03/12/not-so-conservative_judaism.html
I love your blog!
Posted by: Dan | July 11, 2005 at 08:30 AM
"For any faith that preaches diversity to reject essential masculinity seems self defeating. A simple test might be, 'does you congregation believe that there is a time for war and a time for peace'?"
I think you've missed the point. The point is that all of the abrahamic religions (judaism, christianity, islam) assume that god's a guy. This is a stupid thing to think, after darwin.
Abrahamic religions need to evolve from their comically sexist roots if they want to survive.
In case you hadn't noticed, all three are constantly at each other's throats.
Surely you don't really, truly think that the supreme being, the one, the creator is more male than female? Surely you understand how pathologically sexist the guy in the sky religions are?
Posted by: deborah | July 11, 2005 at 11:33 AM
I have always found it intriguing that while the Divine Name is masculine, Ruach haKodesh is a feminine word in Hebrew.
Similarly, we are created in the image of God. However, God took from Adam's side everything of his feminine essence and formed Chava. Thus, we become one flesh when joined together as man and wife, and it would seem that we then reflect the image of God more wholly.
Posted by: Nate | July 11, 2005 at 12:27 PM
I have the same complaint when I'm at shul. Some of our congregation's redactors have modified a few prayers to the point that they're hardly recognizable. How is this more "egalitarian" if it was never even put to a congregational vote?
deborah: I have a question about your comment, particular this one.
Abrahamic religions need to evolve from their comically sexist roots if they want to survive.
In case you hadn't noticed, all three are constantly at each other's throats.
Are you implying that certain adherents of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam would not take issue with one another if only their faiths would not assume their deity to be male? How is this different than the argument, "Oh, if women ruled the world, there would be no war?"
Posted by: Daniel Slate | July 11, 2005 at 12:57 PM
Daniel: Are you implying that certain adherents of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam would not take issue with one another if only their faiths would not assume their deity to be male? How is this different than the argument, "Oh, if women ruled the world, there would be no war?"
Huh? The point is that it is stupid, sexist and illogical to imagine the supreme being as either male or female. The creator, the one, adonoi, allah, god is BEYOND sex.
Get it? Probably not.
You are a white man desperate to cling to the destructive delusion that you're more like god than women are.
How tragically pathetic.
Posted by: deborah | July 11, 2005 at 02:30 PM
Folks,
How about keeping Stuart's blog the friendly place it is for intelligent peaceful discussions without using strong language.
Posted by: Freeman | July 11, 2005 at 03:09 PM
Freeman: Gladly. I was surprised this sparked a flame, as I was only seeking a logical clarification.
deborah: I was merely seeking clarification of a point of yours that didn't seem to follow logic. I don't know why you lashed out, or deemed it necessary to attack my intellect and take it upon yourself to judge my race and my psychology.
I still seek to understand why the "Abrahamic" religions, as you call them, must drift from their original language if they "want to survive." They have not died in the thousands of years they have existed without such language changes previously.
It is probably healthier for any conception of "God" (whatever THAT is) to be gender neutral. The repression of female thinkers throughout history due to the refusal to do this almost certainly resulted in a loss of knowledge, and that is a true tragedy.
Posted by: Daniel Slate | July 11, 2005 at 03:52 PM
Sorry for being snippy. First Stuart posted a very silly comment on my blog, then I saw what appeared to be more evidence of illogical thinking on his blog - assuming that the alternative to thinking of god as a guy is thinking of god as a woman, when the obvious alternative is thinking of god as beyond sex.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all insanely, pathologically sexist.
Who cares if the first guys to write stuff down assumed god was a he? That was before Descartes, before Darwin - surely the fact that Abraham himself was sexist isn't an argument that Jews today should honor his ignorance and bias?
Posted by: deb | July 11, 2005 at 03:56 PM
No worries.
Of course people shouldn't be sexist just because Abraham was. Just as people shouldn't preach peace just because Jesus did. There needs to be a sound reason, such as: promoting peace tends to create conditions that protect people's rights.
I agree that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all, in general, paternalistic and sexist. But from where does this stem?
Does it stem from the concept of a male deity? If so, then what reply can those faiths' leaders offer to this: Was it so much an assumption that Gød was male, or was there some literary purpose? The Bible has been shown to be a human document, (and by extension, human purpose) and one that has been heavily edited and redacted over the years. If there ever was an original "divinely inspired" message contained in the first text, it has been lost, or at the very least, changed.
I prefer to consider religious texts as anthologies of allegories. Divine command theory never seemed to hold much water, when its primary assumption defies proof.
Posted by: Daniel Slate | July 11, 2005 at 06:40 PM
Daniel: I prefer to consider religious texts as anthologies of allegories. Divine command theory never seemed to hold much water, when its primary assumption defies proof.
Yup. I prefer not to waste much time poring over tomes written by people who lived prior to Descartes, Darwin, Watson, Crick, Einstein, Bohr, etc.
I think anyone with functional frontal lobes who does spend time poring over such tomes views religious texts as allegories written by fallible humans rather than the literal, actual word of the supreme being.
Tell that to the fundamentalist Christians, Jews and Muslims though.
Personally, I think anyone who goes to a seder and buys into the game that there were four sons (what? not even one daughter? what are the odds of that? .0625, if you must know) is condoning and supporting the patriarchal guy-in-the-sky nonsense.
And anyone who refers to god as "he" is part of the problem, even if you have a footnote that god is beyond gender, blah, blah, blah.
Posted by: deb | July 11, 2005 at 10:06 PM
Deborah,
Whose point am I missing?
"abrahamic religions assume that god's a guy"
Actually I wouldn't agree.
Genesis 1:28 (Jerusalem bible - Koren Publishers):
So God created Mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.
This seems to indicate that God is comprised of masculine and feminine attributes and you can't understand God as one without the other. In eastern religions you might have this referred to as the yin and yang - different aspects of a thing.
I wouldn't say that these religions try to fit God into the image of a man.
As far as mentioning that abrahamic religions are at each other's throat, Podles also lumps "Eastern religions such as Buddhism" into the masculine religions.
On the other hand, my point is that stripping out the masculine side of our human nature (and its role in religion) is trying to deny who we are and rewrite history.
This should lead to a discussion about the characteristics of masculinity and femininity (which perhaps might enlighten us as to the origin of many languages gender based nouns and perhaps even the reason that God is referred to in the masculine - the simplistic characterization that this was developed by some misogynist is not compelling).
Podle brings us a masculine characteristic which is 'separating' in nature rather than embracing. I used going to war rather than promoting peace. This is not to imply that men aren't nurturing and loving peace - it is just that our masculine side is more likely to embrace war when called for (to protect our loved ones and defeat injustice).
Fashioning religions without accepting the masculine attributes doesn't fix the problems in the world, it just drives some people away and ends up creating a shallower religion.
Posted by: Stuart Berman | July 12, 2005 at 12:25 AM
Stuart,
If you can't see how sexism runs through all of judaism, it is not worth my time to explain it to you.
I have no idea who Podles is, but it is clear to anyone who investigates the issue that eastern religions are much more explicit about the one, the tao being a combination of yin/yang, male/female.
Stuart: Fashioning religions without accepting the masculine attributes doesn't fix the problems in the world, it just drives some people away and ends up creating a shallower religion.
You seem cognitively incapable of understanding my simple point. I am not saying god should be viewed as female. I am not saying to ignore the masculine. I've said it about three times but you are determined to misinterpret me as saying that god is female.
God is beyond sex. God is neither male nor female. Abrahamic religions are comically, perversely, pathologically wedded to the idea that god's a guy who lives in the sky.
Posted by: deb | July 12, 2005 at 11:08 AM
Podles is the author I referenced and linked to in my post.
Perhaps your problem with religions is that you misinterpret them with your own 'guy in the sky' understanding.
I try to view things from a variety of perspectives not just my own - it keeps me from dehumanizing the majority of the human race.
Posted by: Stuart Berman | July 12, 2005 at 11:43 AM
Stuart -
Moving the discussion away from the gender of God and sexism in religion, judging from your comment, either I did not communicate clearly in my post or you misunderstood what it was about.
While I do have strong opinions about patriarchy and religiou, the post really wasn't about Rob Bell at all, and if I communicated that I think that he is in some way despicable, then I'm sorry. (I'm a little confused that you got that from the post - did you read all the way to the end?) The fact that he is a pastor and male is really incidental to the post.
He was just a convenient example of someone who seems to live a charmed life - there was a convenient link to an article about him and I happened to have known him slightly some years ago. I thought I made the point that he seems to be someone who is a very gifted preacher who conveys a message of God's love and acceptance, so I couldn't console myself that he achieved success by being unethical.
I just needed an example for my point that life is unfair, and that for those of us who were pretty heavily damaged in our early years, it can be hard to have to work so hard just to get to the place where people with relatively normal childhoods start. Basically, it's the age old question of suffering and why some people have to go through very bad things and others don't. As someone who lived through many years of abuse in my childhood and adolescence, sometimes I feel resentful of others' seemingly easy lives. That's not pretty perhaps, but it's true. Sometimes that is difficult for people who haven't been through similar things to understand.
Just felt the need to clarify.
Peace,
Christy
Posted by: Christy | July 12, 2005 at 01:53 PM
Stuart,
I think you're more sexist and less intelligent than most Jewish men I know.
Your comments on my blog are comically, pathetically stupid.
Here's a deal: Stop posting stupid shit on my blog and I'll leave you and your abrahamic cronies herealone.
I have no interest in debating with you or engaging with you.
I'm not a big fan of dr. laura dittoheads (i'm my kid's dad! blech!) and your comments on my blog and are just dumbdumbdumb.
I've got much bigger fish to fry than you, Stu. So please, stay away from my blog and i'll stay away from yours.
Deal?
Posted by: deb | July 12, 2005 at 06:13 PM
Deborah,
All you have to do is let me know you don't wish to have me comment on your blog - I won't disturb you.
You are certainly welcome to post your opinions here as you see fit.
Wishing you the best.
Posted by: Stuart Berman | July 12, 2005 at 06:37 PM
Dear Deborah,
Why are you so afraid of other people's opinions? Isn't it what this
blog thing all about? Do you expect everyone to agree with you or
shut up? If you were misunderstood, explain yourself better. Have a
civil discussion, or none at all, I say.
You can not possibly ban anyone from doing anything. I am assuming
that gets you a little frustrated, but that's how it is.
I am appalled by the way you handled these sorts of situations (here
and on your blog,) and I too will voluntarily stay away from your
blog.
BTW, I am not taking sides on this discussion. But by plain
observation, Stuart's net ethics and manner is light years ahead of
yours.
Posted by: i have to say | July 12, 2005 at 07:26 PM
Christy,
I beg to differ (without being confrontational) I think I understood your post perfectly even after reading your comments.
The 'despicable' term seemed to be in step with your title "Why I hate Rob Bell" - not because I sense any enmity you may have with him personally, your post is very clear on that. I enjoy your blog and found it coincidental that he lives around here (though I have never met or seen him.)
I chose to send a trackback to you because of this fact, and your explicit statement that you didn't want any comments posted there and primarily due to the notion that in your post he comes across with masculine attributes. (In this way we are both using him out of convenience.) On the other hand your post reveals a very feminine characteristic of open suffering. (Indeed most of your posts are filled with feminine attributes which are genuine and appreciated.) The contrast just seemed appropriate for my post. No disrespect was meant.
As an aside - I know someone who is bothered by friends assuming a charmed life was led having faced terrible things and climbing out to no longer agonize over the past. People assume the lack of brooding comes from growing up without a care in the world. They have no idea what was endured.
Keep up your thoughtful posts. Your subtle use of humor is not lost on people.
a sincere shalom
Posted by: Stuart Berman | July 12, 2005 at 09:50 PM
Hi everyone,
A few observations:
Female pagan and mystery religions in history were not non-violent or pleasant affairs simply because the deity had a female aspect. Judaism, with its patriarchal and jealous God was a tremendous moral improvement in terms of worship requirements over all its regional rivals. We can start with the Hebrews not engaging in cannibalism and move on from there.
Deborah seems to have a bit of god complex herself - things should simply be because she wills it. When people disagree she resorts to juvenile personal insults and then bails.
Some ppl love the sound of ignorance more than that of correction.
Posted by: mark safranski | July 12, 2005 at 11:26 PM
Why does God have to be a certain sex? God is both masculine and feminine. We were made in his likeness. Of course, I don't understand why Jews don't believe Jesus is the son of God either though so I suppose I am just out of touch.
Posted by: Bill Caldwell | August 08, 2005 at 10:22 AM
Bill,
That is my point God isn't a certain sex. The Jewish understanding of Jesus is far more complex than you allow. To hold a 'simple' definition of God is to shortchange 'His' nature. For an introduction into one Jew's view of Jesus (and Christianity) see Phillip Sigal's "The Foundation of Judaism from Biblical Origins to the Sixth Century A.D.: From the Origins to the Separation of Christianity".
Posted by: Stuart Berman | August 09, 2005 at 11:57 PM