I had wanted not to talk about the recent story over at Christianity Today, reflecting negatively on the judgment of the Episcopal Church’s Women’s Ministries website. The page in question evidently detailed a “women’s liturgy” that recapitulated the exact practices relative to goddess-worship that the book of Hosea decries. The whole thing seemed like the sort of lamentable problem that attention would only exacerbate.
Today, though, I got an email eliciting my response, and I figured it was time to do my homework and state my perspective on the brouhaha. I re-read the Christianity Today story, wincing, and followed the link to the text of the liturgy, but it was gone, 404’d. One can find easily enough a cached copy of the page, however, and the liturgy does indeed entail offering raisin cakes to the Queen of Heaven.
In a tepid defense of the page and the church, I would note that (a) the page doesn’t actually recognize Astarte as distinct from the God of Israel, but seems to be suggesting that she represents God’s “feminine face,” a notion I would resist vigorously, but which amounts to something less than flat-out idolatry; (b) the page in question seems to be maintained by a seminary intern, and I’m vocationally committed to encouraging seminarians to speak their minds in public, even when they end up putting their digital foot in it; (c) someone was evidently concerned enough about the page to take it down in response to the CT article — which isn’t the way I’d suggest handling it, but it amounts to an admission that something was off target.
On the other hand, one does wonder what’s going through people’s heads. I vigorously support feminist inquiry and theological endeavors, but slapping a neo-Druidic rite onto an Episcopal liturgy doesn’t advance the cause of truth in either, or any, particular way. If there’s an appropriate way for Christians to respond positively to feminist challenges (and I’m willing for that to stand an open question), I’m entirely confident that the path lies not by the way of assimilating the Christian tradition to an allegedly more women-friendly pagan tradition. It’s way, way more complicated than that.
I’m given to understand that some people think they can reconcile Christian faith with Celtic-Druidic doctrine by picking and choosing the elements of each that they approve of. I’m not spiritually-evolved enough to see the ways in which that’s not perniciously self-aggrandizing in all the most spiritually dangerous ways. If you were wondering what I think about the page that has since gone missing, please know that I take it as a bad idea, and that I’m unequivocally against idolatry.
Posted by AKMA at October 27, 2004 11:57 PM | TrackBackI agree with you that the liturgy wasn't idolatrous so much as very sloppy in its theology. Personally, I don't understand why Christians would call a ritual meal a "Eucharist" if it didn't refer at any point to Jesus.
Documents from the bible and our tradition do reflect the patriarchal context in which they were created and transmitted (and by the way, it's not like our own culture isn't patriarchal and that doesn't shape contemporary liturgies, even feminist ones), but it really bugs me that people can pass classes all the way through an M.Div. (as I assume the priest who compiled the liturgy did) and still somehow not seem to understand just how rich our scriptures and tradition are with material that subverts patriarchy and affirms women as spiritual leaders.
Thanks for your work helping seminarians to become more familiar with scripture and better readers of both scriptural and 21st-century texts! I have a feeling that if all our seminarians had all of the time and help they needed in these areas, we wouldn't see seminary-educated priests producing liturgies like the one criticized in CT.
Blessings,
Dylan
Absolutely there are people who think picking and choosing will solve the problem. A lot of them are my college chapel friends.
For most of my individual friends (and that's in no way to speak for anyone else) the picking and choosing is based in their belief that "all" religions are equally valid and truthful and, often, in their own time as pagans. The idea that (just as each religion may not have the whole truth) each of us individually deciding upon what's truth in each religion may not be accurate or good doesn't seem to make much headway. Basing decisions like that in a strong sense of scripture, tradition, etc. rather than coopting scripture and tradition in ways that support us was not a popular idea.
*I’m unequivocally against idolatry*
I would give this statement more credence if you would *unequivocally* condemn the theology expressed in the "Women's Eucharist".
Will you confess the Catholic faith, or not?
Posted by: Chris Jones at October 29, 2004 06:27 PM