Intro.
I think that the traditional Catholic understanding of Mary has some serious flaws, but they get many things right. What they get right may very well outweigh or at least balance out in both faith and practice what, IMO, they get wrong. We Evangelicals tend to look at the Virgin Mary as a kind of usurper, even a cover for demonic spirits who would lead us away from pure faith in Christ. We rarely mention her, except when we have to - like at Christmastime when we talk about the Virgin Birth in passing.
The rest of the year, she doesn't get airtime in our churches, except maybe to say that we do not venerate her - whatever that means to us. For all practical purposes, Mary does not exist for us. We are proud of that fact, even. We do not tolerate Mariolatry! I suspect that Catholics would not tolerate it, either.
I think that we Evangelicals are losing out by ignoring Mary. A proper Biblical understanding of this most blessed of women may very well be a kind of prophylactic, a protection from demonic spirits - and I am not sure I have that proper understanding. I am just one woman sitting at my dining room table, trying to gain and then put into words a greater understanding of what being a woman in Christ means and how I am supposed to live that out in my life. Maybe someone else reading this will be encouraged to get to know the Biblical Mary as well. She is not a nobody, after all.
I won't try to explain Catholic dogma, since I am not qualified to do that, obviously. However, here are some links that explain quite clearly what Mary means and does not mean in the Catholic system. Again, I am not in full agreement with what is presented at these websites, but neither am I in agreement with what I will call the standard Evangelical understanding of what Catholicism teaches! Anyway... I will put my Evangelicalism eyeglasses on and try to explain why I think that we as Evangelicals need Mary more than ever before. If anyone wants to study the Catholic Church's teaching about Mary, these resources are reliable.
Mary is Our Mother
The Blessed Virgin Mary
The following blog post kind of got me thinking about how in our Evangelical faith, Mary doesn't even exist, not even when we talk about motherhood. Ann Voskamp is not more guilty of this kind of oversight than the rest of us. At least Ann spoke beautifully about motherhood, even if she left out the woman, as Elizabeth Scalia gently pointed out. How did we Evangelicals allow this to happen?
No, I cannot be a Catholic...
Dear Ann Voskamp: Which Mama First Modeled Fluid Beauty?
I am not sure that I can keep calling myself Evangelical, either. Yes, I have no problem identifying with the Evangelicalism of even a couple of decades ago. However, what she is becoming terrifies me.
Some are opting for just plain Christian, but that can mean anything and nothing.
More later...
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Lilith, the Free - 3
I will say that my understanding of Lilith has been informed by the Christian writer George MacDonald, so I will start there. There is an excellent study guide to the book, and it can be found online here.
Lilith Study Guide
Also, here are the links to a couple of posts I wrote awhile back about MacDonald's Lilith.
Lilith Redeemed
Lilith
MacDonald took the Jewish myth and Christianized it. In his version, Lilith is restored to who she was supposed to be in the first place. It is a phantasy novel. In fact, MacDonald is credited with being the father of the phantasy genre. He had a huge impact on both C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien.
Here are some characteristics of the mythical Lilith. It's pretty creepy, actually, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Biblical account found in Genesis 1 and 2. Lilith was, allegedly, Adam's first wife who obviously went off the rails, thinking that she was finding true freedom. She refused to return to her husband and live as a wife was supposed to live.
Lilith Study Guide
Also, here are the links to a couple of posts I wrote awhile back about MacDonald's Lilith.
Lilith Redeemed
Lilith
MacDonald took the Jewish myth and Christianized it. In his version, Lilith is restored to who she was supposed to be in the first place. It is a phantasy novel. In fact, MacDonald is credited with being the father of the phantasy genre. He had a huge impact on both C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien.
Here are some characteristics of the mythical Lilith. It's pretty creepy, actually, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Biblical account found in Genesis 1 and 2. Lilith was, allegedly, Adam's first wife who obviously went off the rails, thinking that she was finding true freedom. She refused to return to her husband and live as a wife was supposed to live.
Adam and Lilith never found peace together; for when he wished to lie with her, she took offence at the recumbent posture he demanded. 'Why must I lie beneath you?' she asked. 'I also was made from dust, and am therefore your equal.' Because Adam tried to compel her obedience by force, Lilith, in a rage, uttered the magic name of God, rose into the air and left him.
Adam complained to God: 'I have been deserted by my helpmeet' God at once sent the angels Senoy, Sansenoy and Semangelof to fetch Lilith back. They found her beside the Red Sea, a region abounding in lascivious demons, to whom she bore lilim at the rate of more than one hundred a day. 'Return to Adam without delay,' the angels said, `or we will drown you!' Lilith asked: `How can I return to Adam and live like an honest housewife, after my stay beside the Red Sea?? 'It will be death to refuse!' they answered. `How can I die,' Lilith asked again, `when God has ordered me to take charge of all newborn children: boys up to the eighth day of life, that of circumcision; girls up to the twentieth day. None the less, if ever I see your three names or likenesses displayed in an amulet above a newborn child, I promise to spare it.' To this they agreed; but God punished Lilith by making one hundred of her demon children perish daily; [5] and if she could not destroy a human infant, because of the angelic amulet, she would spitefully turn against her own. [6]
So, when I talk about Lilith feminism, this is what I mean. She abandoned her helpmeet duties. She did not want a man who would dominate her sexually. She wanted to destroy children. She did not want to be a wife, and she destroyed even children she bore. She gave herself to many lovers, and thought she was free.
There are other interesting details in the Gnosis Archive, like the idea of androgyny and the creation of Adam. The Bible does not say that Adam was androgynous, but part of the Lilith Myth involves androgyny. Creepy stuff.
This is a far cry from, say, Susan B. Anthony, pro-life, pro-marriage feminism. It is a far cry from feminists like G.E.M. Anscombe or Dorothy Sayers. In fact, Sayers refused to call herself a feminist because she did not want to identify herself with the progressive women's movement. She was a Conservative. Both of these women were devout Catholics.
Why do I want to write about this freaky Lilith myth? It strikes fear in my heart, actually. I would rather write about and share videos of cute little kittens. Suffice it to say that in certain discussions during which I used to crash and burn, at times, the spirit of Lilith manifested itself. She is alive and well, even among some who call themselves Evangelicals, sad to say. Now, it might cost me something to say that. I shall see.
I think that George MacDonald was aware of Lilith's presence in his time as well. He wrote his book showing the way for Lilith's redemption and recreation through the Gospel. So, for the sake of the Gospel and of truth, I am willing to take the risk.
Motherless Child - 2
Intro:
Even thought I may feel like a motherless child, I really am not.So, here are a couple of Scriptures that show me why I am not a motherless child. I have a mother.
I. Galatians 4:26,27- English Standard Version (ESV)
26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
27 For it is written,
“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”
A. My mother is the heavenly Jerusalem. The human woman, Sarah, is used as a metaphor for our heavenly mother. Remember that Sarah was Abraham's wife. She was barren for most of her life. Her biological clock had timed out, and had quit functioning for decades before God did a miracle in her. He allowed her to become pregnant at about age 90.
B. Notice that He did so with Sarah in a very human way, by making it possible for her to have a human child. God did not give her an alien child, but one that was very human. Remember Star Wars and how Anikan Starwalker - who later became Darth Vadar - was born? He had a human mother, but some kind of alien force entered his mother and she became pregnant with her son, Anikan.
C. That is not the kind of thing we are talking about with Sarah. She was a real human woman, and her husband a real human man. They made a child, Isaac, in the normal, human way. What was not normal, but rather miraculous, was their advanced age. (see Genesis 18)
D. So, it pleased God to give Sarah a son. Not only that, it pleased God to use Sarah as a metaphor for how He brings many children into His family. She is the type of the heavenly Jerusalem, the true mother of all who believe Jesus Christ. In this spiritual relationship, there is no physical union to produce children, of course.
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
- John 3:6 KJV
I think that we could say that the Heavenly Jerusalem is our motherland, our patria. We belong to her and we belong with her. Of course, this is metaphorically speaking. She is our true home.
I think that we could say that the Heavenly Jerusalem is our motherland, our patria. We belong to her and we belong with her. Of course, this is metaphorically speaking. She is our true home.
II. John 3:1-5
You Must Be Born Again
3 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
2 This man came to Jesus[a] by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”
3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
2 This man came to Jesus[a] by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”
3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
A. Now, this translation is interesting.
1. Look at the passage I cut and pasted into this post. There is a [b] that leads to a footnote. Here is the text of that footnote.
John 3:3 - Or from above; the Greek is purposely ambiguous and can mean both again and from above; also verse7
2. It is possible to do a free translation of this verse, which gives a person a little more latitude without claiming that it is the official translation. So, a free translation might be something like this:
"Unless a person is born again from above, he or she cannot see the kingdom of God."
3. The first birth involved a human mother. Being born made it possible to life on this earth. If we connect John 3 to Galatians 4, then maybe we can say that being born again from above makes it possible for us to live in the Jerusalem that is above.
Conclusions:
I have a mother. I was born from above, where she is. I was born by the Holy Spirit since He has the power to create life. However, I have a motherland, so to speak. She is the Jerusalem that is above, the heavenly Jerusalem. This should give us great comfort as we pass through this world. This world is not my home, I'm just a passin' through, as the old Gospel song says. We have a home, and she is our mother, our patria- the Jerusalem that is above.
I'll end with a C.S. Lewis quote, and then a Scripture to consider.
"If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy the only logical explanation is I was made for another world"
5. Colossians 3 English Standard Version (ESV)
Put On the New Self
3 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.
2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.
3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
4 When Christ who is your[a] life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
----------------------------------
I now understand the Heavenly Jerusalem to be synonymous with the Church, my Mother. I don't have to wait until Heaven to be joined with her. She is my true home.
2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.
3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
4 When Christ who is your[a] life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
----------------------------------
I now understand the Heavenly Jerusalem to be synonymous with the Church, my Mother. I don't have to wait until Heaven to be joined with her. She is my true home.
Believing Someone vs. Believing in Someone - 2 - G.E.M. Anscombe
Below will be found another quote from the article Faith. Anscombe is addressing the problem of making a group of learned men the sole guardians of faith. It is fine to have such men carefully guarding the faith - the Catholic faith in Anscombe's context - but did they really know and control all that is to be said and experienced about it? I love the phrase "scattered through different learned heads." These learned heads' faith was not more valuable in God's eyes than the faith of the most simple believer.
Her paragraph below shows that Catholicism is indeed populist as well as intellectual and rational. Truth of the Gospel should be as widely broadcast as possible and believed by everyone no matter their station in life.
Here is the quote from the book Faith in a Hard Ground - article on Faith - p. 42 where Anscombe is talking about certain changes that the Catholic Church had made.
What about the faith of the simple? They could not know all these things. Did they then have some inferior brand of faith? Surely not! And anyway, did those who studied really think they knew all these things? No: but the implication was that the knowledge was there somehow, perhaps scattered through different learned heads, perhaps merely theoretically and abstractly available. In the belief that this was so, on was being rational in having faith. But then it had to be acknowledged that all this was problematic - and so adherence to faith was really a matter of hanging on, and both its being a gift and its voluntariness would at this point be stressed.
Here's the punchline.:
For everyone is to have faith, and their learning doesn't give them a superior kind of faith. Everyone is to run; and few are road sweepers.
Isn't she calling the learned men the road sweepers, the ones who clean up messes and make the road a safer place? Not sure, but all of us - simple and learned - have to run the race of faith.
I will ask this, even though Anscombe did not. Who do we keep an eye on as we run? Jesus Himself, of course. He is also our closest Friend and Companion in the race, cheering us on and picking us up when we fall. He must be close or we could not look to Him as we run. He is as close as close can be.
Her paragraph below shows that Catholicism is indeed populist as well as intellectual and rational. Truth of the Gospel should be as widely broadcast as possible and believed by everyone no matter their station in life.
Here is the quote from the book Faith in a Hard Ground - article on Faith - p. 42 where Anscombe is talking about certain changes that the Catholic Church had made.
What about the faith of the simple? They could not know all these things. Did they then have some inferior brand of faith? Surely not! And anyway, did those who studied really think they knew all these things? No: but the implication was that the knowledge was there somehow, perhaps scattered through different learned heads, perhaps merely theoretically and abstractly available. In the belief that this was so, on was being rational in having faith. But then it had to be acknowledged that all this was problematic - and so adherence to faith was really a matter of hanging on, and both its being a gift and its voluntariness would at this point be stressed.
Here's the punchline.:
For everyone is to have faith, and their learning doesn't give them a superior kind of faith. Everyone is to run; and few are road sweepers.
Isn't she calling the learned men the road sweepers, the ones who clean up messes and make the road a safer place? Not sure, but all of us - simple and learned - have to run the race of faith.
I will ask this, even though Anscombe did not. Who do we keep an eye on as we run? Jesus Himself, of course. He is also our closest Friend and Companion in the race, cheering us on and picking us up when we fall. He must be close or we could not look to Him as we run. He is as close as close can be.
Hebrews 12 English Standard Version (ESV)
Jesus, Founder and Perfecter of Our Faith
12 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Believing Somebody vs. Believing in Somebody
G.E.M. Anscombe wrote two papers, one called What it is to Believe Someone and the other Faith. They can both be found in the book Faith in a Hard Ground, which I purchased from iTunes.
Here is what she said about the Biblical phrase, "Abraham believed God."
Even in this rather well-known context where the words appear plainly, they are not attended to...Abraham believed God...Rather, we are deluged with rubbish about "believing in" as opposed to "believing that."
Like the chorus of animals in Orwell, there is a claque chanting "believing in goo-ood, believing that ba-ad."
- What it is to Believe Someone - p. 30 of Faith in a Hard Ground
I am not sure all that she was trying to say, since her arguments are very sophisticated and I can't follow it all. However, the gist of it is that when we say we believe in someone, we are really not saying much of anything.
We are just repeating what we have been told to repeat, like irrational animals. It is fashionable to say that we believe in someone, but that is not good enough. Even though it is assumed that the phrase "believing in" is good, what does it mean? It is as if "believing that" were a bad phrase that should not even be used.
However, Abraham is the gold standard of faith. He is the father of all who believe God. It is said of him, "Abraham believed God'. So, it cannot be a bad thing for a person to simply say that they believe God.
Anscombe's idea, I think, is brilliant. Why not just say I believe you, or I believe that what you say is true instead of the overly vague, sentimental "I believe in you." In her articles, Anscombe develops the idea of what it means to believe someone, and then applies it to a Christian's belief in God. Brilliant stuff.
I have started to use the phrases "I believe" and "I believe that" in my own communications. Here is another quote from the article where Anscombe talks about the clarity of using phrases that begin with "believe that" when talking about our faith.
Still, the phrase "I believe in you" is kind of sweet, but what does it mean? I suppose it does imply that there is a relationship, and not just mere intellectual assent to a set of beliefs. Believe in, in the case of God, may be a more intense, more personal kind of belief than just believe by itself. However, it has to also involve "I believe God.'
Her two articles on the subject have made me think, and I am enjoying that. I don't think she was saying that "believe in" is never appropriate, but that it is over used and often devoid of real meaning.
It is clear that the topic that I introduced of "believing somebody" is in the middle of our target. - G.E.M. Anscombe (from the article Faith - p. 45-Faith in a Hard Ground)
I think it is clear as well.
This needs a little more development and a few more quotes to back up what I am saying. Later...
I'm not sure what she thinks of me. Mom, I'm tryin' to be good, I really am.
Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child
Nana Mouskouri is amazing, but not so much on Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child. Seriously, Nana? Please don't try that again. Loved you on Song for Liberty in Spanish - just before Chile's return to democracy - , but not on this.
Marianne Anderson is great, of course, but not as great as Jackson on this song. Mahalia owns it.
Now why am I attracted to this song - or rather this blending of two songs? I call it a blending of two songs rather than a medley. Most medleys are too obviously, well, medleys - two or more songs thrown together in an imperfect oneishness. This Summertime/Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child is a perfect blending of two songs into one. So, why this blending, then? Why am I drawn to it?
1.) For one thing, I am a motherless child, even though I am quite adult. My mom passed away last May, and I am not sure how to grieve for her. It's a long story. At the end she was very ill, and ready to meet Jesus face to face. So, I am happy for her now. There is more, but those thoughts and feelings run too deep to express right now.
So, they find some expression through this song.
2.) We are part of a missionary organization that works with orphans, widows, poor families, and more. My husband and son-in-law spent most of the month of August in Africa visiting our colleagues. One of the photos that he brought home has haunted me. It is of a group of children with beautiful smiling faces.
The back story is that these children are AIDS orphans that some of our colleagues care for. Even more than that, these children themselves also HIV positive. Words fail me.
3.) I have been thinking a lot lately about motherhood. I hope to be able to verbalize some of that in my Lilith series. For now I will just say that my tradition, which is mainline Evangelical, we don't seem to have a mother or a father - a patriarch or a matriarch. Now I'm being weird again, but in my faith tradition I feel somewhat like a motherless child.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Lilith, the Free - 2
Lilith, the Free - 2
In my first post, I talked about 3 areas where Lilith, the anti-wife and anti-mother of Jewish myth, tried to gain her freedom. I'll tackle the anti-wife, freedom from marriage issue first. I am using the name Lilith to describe what much of feminism has promoted at least since the 60s. What I am calling Lilith feminism has dominated the whole women's movement for decades now. I will explain why I believe that to be true.
In 1970, the phrase "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" became popular, even though most thought it to be outrageous. Here is a little history of the origin of that saying.:
Gloria Steinem had this to say in a letter she wrote toTime magazine in autumn 2000:
"In your note on my new and happy marital partnership with David Bale, you credit me with the witticism 'A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.' In fact, Irina Dunn, a distinguished Australian educator, journalist and politician, coined the phrase back in 1970 when she was a student at the University of Sydney. She paraphrased the philosopher who said, 'Man needs God like fish needs a bicycle.' Dunn deserves credit for creating such a popular and durable spoof of the old idea that women need men more than vice versa."
Irina Dunn later confirmed Steinem's version of events, in January 2002:
""Yes, indeed, I am the one Gloria referred to. I was paraphrasing from a phrase I read in a philosophical text I was reading for my Honours year in English Literature and Language in 1970. It was 'A man needs God like a fish needs a bicycle'. My inspiration arose from being involved in the renascent women's movement at the time, and from being a bit of a smart-arse. I scribbled the phrase on the backs of two toilet doors, would you believe, one at Sydney University where I was a student, and the other at Soren's Wine Bar at Woolloomooloo, a seedy suburb in south Sydney. The doors, I have to add, were already favoured graffiti sites."
The message that came across loud and clear is that women do not need men. Men may need women, but we women can stand alone without the help of a man. We can be independent, not needing to rely on a male for support, either economically or emotionally. Yes, if we choose to be with a man, that is fine. We just do not really need men. Women can make it on our own.
In fact, in that same year of 1970, sitcom The Mary Tyler Moore Show began airing and ran until 1977. This show is credited with changing television. In it, Mary is a single woman in her 30s who goes to Minneapolis to get away from a failed love affair. She finds that she can make it on her own as a single, professional woman in the big city.
The theme song for the show is Love Is All Around. The last line of the song is.: You're gonna' make it after all. How was Mary gonna' make it? She would make it without getting married is what it boiled down to. In the series, she had some love interests, but she never married. The message is that if beautiful Mary could make it on her own, so can any woman. Marriage was optional, maybe even undesirable for women. Here is how Mary would make it, according to the song.
How will you make it on your own?
This world is awfully big, girl this time you're all alone
But it's time you started living
It's time you let someone else do some giving
She would make it all by herself. She was mature enough to not need a man. The only thing is that in the show, she had friends who helped her through all of her difficulties, especially her best friend, Rhoda. Also, the father figure, Lou, was always there to support her. So, she really did not do it alone, she just did it without a husband.
So, in a way, in large part due to that little fish and bicycle phrase and a television sitcom, Lilith, the anti-wife, was unleashed on society. Women were now encouraged to find a good life outside of marriage. Yes, many women had their own careers even before women like Mary, Irina Dunn and Gloria Steinem came on the scene. However, this was a new twist. Women now could avoid the entanglements of marriage and be their own, independent person. It's time women quit being little girls and started living as mature, independent women. Let someone else give of themselves.
Give of themselves in what? Give of themselves by getting married and having a family, I assume. That was what most women up until that time had aimed for as they matured from being little girls to being grown up women.
The assumption, which I believe to be false, is that married women are somehow not free. We married women are weaker and may need men to give our lives meaning. Independent, mature women can make it on their own.
Also, there is an assumption that women who follow a profession are "making it", whatever that means. A corollary is that women who are married are not really making it. Again, making what?
Whatever the "it" is or was, it was superior to being tied down to one man for life in holy matrimony.
Run the clock forward to 2000 and Destiny's Child song Independent Women. It was part of the soundtrack for Charlie's Angels. I actually like the song fine as songs go. I would take it as a kind of tongue in cheek description of the rich, beautiful woman who can buy whatever she wants and have any man she wants. Newsflash, girls. There are very few women who actually fit that category. The Independent Woman is largely a myth.
It is odd that women like June Cleaver or Donna Reed are considered to have impossibly unrealistic lifestyles. Yes, they are sitcom characters with certain values that are now out of fashion. However, look at the Independent Woman. Is she real, at least for the majority of women? I say that she is not. In fact, in an absolute sense, June and Donna are more real, since they model beautiful, even Christian ideals of love, self-sacrifice, and marital harmony.
The message is unrealistic at best and downright dangerous at worst. How many women are able to be truly independent like the song suggests? Very few people, male or female, are able to live according to the unrealistic and self-centered expectations shown in the song. Here are some of the words.
Question: Tell me what you think about me
I buy my own diamonds and I buy my own rings
Only ring your cell-y when I'm feelin lonely
When it's all over please get up and leave
Question: Tell me how you feel about this
Try to control me boy you get dismissed
Pay my own fun, oh and I pay my own bills
Always 50/50 in relationships
The chorus goes like this.:
All the women who are independent
Throw your hands up at me
All the honeys who makin' money
Throw your hands up at me
All the mommas who profit dollas
Throw your hands up at me
All the ladies who truly feel me
Throw your hands up at me
In the fantasy world of Hollywood, this song somehow makes sense. However, in the real world of single mothers and lonely, aging, single professional women, the words start to sound pretty hollow. They taunt vast numbers of women who tried to go it alone.
Yes, there are many women who sacrifice the ideal of marriage for a different ideal of service to God and fellow human beings. Yes, there are many women who tried to be married and for one reason or another, things did not work out. However, that does not account for the tendency in our day for young women to avoid marriage altogether. They are acting out the kind of message found in the song Independent Women. Some people call this progress. Others call it what it is - an almost total disaster for large numbers of lonely, single women who cannot find a real man to spend their old age with. Many of these women are also raising children on their own, and cashing government-issued checks.
Here is the Urban Dictionary's definition of the term Independent Woman.:
A woman who pays her own bills, buys her own things, and DOES NOT allow a man to affect her stability or self-confidence. She supports her self on her own entirely and is proud to be able to do so.
Man 1: DAMN I ALWAYS HAVE TO BUY MY GIRL STUFF!!!
Man 2: Sorry I don't know how that feels...I have an Independent Women.
Man 1: WORD? Does she have and independent friend??
See here that there are men who would love to be taken care of by a rich woman. I'm not saying that it is bad for a woman with money to help out or even support her family. That concept is ancient, even. The Proverbs 31 princess in the Bible was also a shrewd businesswoman. So, I am not saying that men have to pay for everything while women get a free ride.
The issue with the Independent Women has to do with women being taught that they do not need anyone, let alone a man, to do anything for them. Remember 16th Century John Donne's poem No Man is an Island?
'No Man is an Island'
No man is an island entire of itself;
every man is a piece of the continent,
a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
as well as if a promontory were,
as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were;
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
The IW is in danger of becoming stranded on a desert island, all alone in the great sea of humanity. From "no man is an island" we progress towards "women can be islands, entirely unto themselves." The metaphorical and mythical Lilith would call that freedom. In fact, it is very possible that the bell will not even toll when the true IW passes from this life to the next. She will have to go it alone.
Yes, there have been powerful women throughout human history who have been independently wealthy. I don't think that they are like the ideal independent woman portrayed in the song Independent Women or Dunn's famous phrase. Women like Queen Victoria or Isabel la Catolica were wealthy women, but they were also married to strong men. They did not reject their role as wife and mother. They ruled as matriarchs caring for their people and advancing the interests of their realms. They did not use their power selfishly. Unfortunately, this kind of royal matriarchy is out of fashion. Progressive Lilith does not like women who dare to be Princesses or Queen mothers.
If the message of Independent Women were followed to the letter, then a woman may have all the sexual partners she wishes to have, but without a slavish attachment to one man. No one can tell her she is doing something wrong in making the choices she makes. She has money which empowers her to do as she pleases. This is a far cry from what has been understood traditionally as a strong, independently wealthy woman. It is poles apart from what used to be thought of as a strong woman - the matriarch of the family who ruled her household well.
I found an interesting article from a Jewish woman's website. It is called Sarah in the Bible. It shows how ancient the concept of strong, matriarchal women is. This kind of woman is undervalued, and even despised in our day of progress towards the free Lilith ideal. Here is what the author, Rachael Gelfman Schultz, says about the matriarch of the Jewish people.
"Biblical Sarah, Abraham’s wife and the matriarch of the Jewish people, is a strong and independent character. When she cannot have children, Sarah takes the initiative and gives her maid-servant, Hagar, to Abraham so that he can have children through Hagar on Sarah’s behalf."
The author goes on to explain, using other examples from her life, how Sarah could show such strength as a woman in a patriarchal society. While I do not agree with everything in the article, I find it interesting that someone else sees Sarah as a strong, matriarchal woman - something that I have thought for a long time.
Many Christian commentators seem to think she was a weak-willed, super-submissive women with little or no personality of her own. I don't see that at all. In fact, that is how I see women in patriarchal societies - strong matriarchs who rule their households sometimes with great power and influence. Sarah was a strong woman who believed God and chose to submit to her husband and the calling he had from God. The fact that she was a strong woman makes her submission even more astounding. She had character and faith. (1 Peter 3:1-6) Many Christians turn the 1 Peter passage into a kind of fetish, saying incredibly stupid things about how women are supposed to act in order to be just like Sarah. Many fail to look at the real Sarah of the Bible to find out how she really acted and the kind of woman God was commending as an ideal woman.
On the other hand, Lilith seems to have set herself free at last in the form of the progressive, independent woman. Check out the online resources that tell about the Lilith myth and maybe you will see what I am trying to say.
Of course, I have to add that not all independent women are living promiscuous, selfish lifestyles. In fact, there are many Christian women who believe God has called them to be single and celibate for one reason or another, at least for now. I lived that lifestyle until I was 28. For me, it was a bit like the Norwegian bachelor farmers - pure, mostly - which may or may not count as pure. I just have to say that I love being married.
Also, there are many career women who also give themselves to their roles as wife and mother.
Lilith is a specific kind of independent woman, one who does not believe in marriage.
More later.
Getting My Feet Wet
Like I said earlier, we just got back from the Holy Land. One of our first stops while there was along the Mediterranean Sea at a place called [I forgot!] We were there to see the ruins of some great something built by somebody. I was there to see something else.
I had just read in the Chesterton book about the life of Thomas Aquinas that as a young child, a teacher was astounded to hear the boy ask, "What is God?"
If I had been teaching him, I would have said something like God is not a "what", He is a "who", which is not a terrible answer. However, I would not have addressed little Thomas' question, and he would not and should not have been satisfied with my answer.
We know from Thomas the man that this question was a driving force in his life. What is God? One of the five basic answers he found by observing creation had to do with motion. Thomas' ability to look at simple things and see great concepts was a kind of trademark of his, I understand.
Thomas said about motion:
"For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality."
Potentiality has to do with what an object is able to do. Actuality is related to what an object actually is moved to do or to be.
Think about it in relation to heat and fire, as Thomas did. Here is what he said.:
"Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it."
His reasoning goes deeper as he works his develops this concept. First, something that is moved cannot move itself, it cannot be both mover and moved. In fact, we could apply this mover and moved, potentiality and actuality concept infinitely, were it not for one thing. Here's the punch like, so to speak.:
""Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."
Pause and think calmly about that! Selah! Whammo!
Think about it in relation to a seed. Think about it in relation to a human child. Think about it in relation to the movement of water - which is what I did as I put my foot into the Mediterranean Sea and watched the motion of the water and light. Potentiality to actuality pointing me to the First Mover.
This was and is a concept that thrilled me and continues to thrill me even after many days. So simple, yet so foundational to our understanding of God.
We look at the motion of trees, and reason back to the wind that is making the trees move - or the earthquake, or whatever other phenomenon is causing the movement. Few of us look farther to see what caused the motion itself. As we continue to reason back to the causes of motion, we arrive at the undeniable fact that there was a first mover, or we should if we are thinking rationally.
God is the First Mover who set everything else into motion. Reason leads us to a first Mover, or we lose touch with reason altogether, as many have done in our day. Without a First Mover, potentiality to actuality does not make sense. Motion then would become like a never ending loop of random information with no real meaning behind it - which is where the post modern mind is at.
The full argument for the existence of God based on motion can be found in his Summa Theologica (Third Article [I, Q.2, Art.3]).
So, I put my foot into Thomism on that beach along the Israeli coast. I will never be the same again. I feel like a child being led around by a great lumbering ox of a man willing to show me what he has been shown. In fact, I could have given this blog the title of A Child's View From the Back of the Ox, but that sounds a bit cumbersome. Besides, why would a child be sitting on the back of an ox in the first place? On the other hand, flies love to attach themselves to oxen, but that's not a very pretty picture, either.
Anyway, I fear I might be mixing metaphors. A Child with Flies Riding on an Ox? No, I'll stick with View From the Cacho del Buey, but I also see myself as a child playing on the edges the great ocean of Christian philosophy, finding little bits of shells and beach glass to marvel at, and Thomas showing me that there is a great big ocean out there to explore. "Look deeper and farther, and do not fear where God may take us," he says.
No, I'm not hearing voices or seeing visions, but as I read Thomas, I feel like I'm getting to know a real person. Maybe that's a girl thing, since we are all about relationships.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 3 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Regarding the unity of the divine essence, we must first believe that God exists. This is a truth clearly known by reason. We observe that all things that move are moved by other things, the lower by the higher. The elements are moved by heavenly bodies; and among the elements themselves, the stronger moves the weaker; and even among the heavenly bodies, the lower are set in motion by the higher. This process cannot be traced back into infinity. For everything that is moved by another is a sort of instrument of the first mover. Therefore, if a first mover is lacking, all things that move will be instruments. But if the series of movers and things moved is infinite, there can be no first mover. In such a case, these infinitely many movers and things moved will all be instruments. But even the unlearned perceive how ridiculous it is to suppose that instruments are moved, unless they are set in motion by some principal agent. This would be like fancying that, when a chest or a bed is being built, the saw or the hatchet performs its functions without the carpenter. Accordingly there must be a first mover that is above all the the rest; and this being we call God.
Why Cacho del Buey?
Vamos arando dijo la mosca sentada arriba del cacho del buey.
This is a saying that I learned in Chile. Actually, Wikipedia lists this as a Chilean proverb and uses the plural of cacho - los cachos. I will explain why I am using the singular - el cacho - but first let me attempt a free translation of the proverb. I am sure that there is an English equivalent saying, but I'll just go with my own creative translation of this one.
So, here goes the translation first, along with a great deal of poetic licence, and a little story.
"Let's get going! We have some plowing to do, dear Ox!" That's what the little fly said to the great Ox as she was sitting on top of one of his giant horns. The Ox, in his humility as great and generous as his large body, kindly allowed Mosca, the little fly, to find a seat. "Get comfortable, dear little Mosca," he said. 'We have a long way to go. We will never see things the same way again if we head out. I am following the Way that is Way itself. I am plowing new ground, but it is really not new at all. Let's get going, little fly friend. My pace is slow but steady."
Okay, so, I just got back from a trip to the Holy Land, and my internal clock is all messed up. To make matters worse, today we return to standard time here in the US - except Arizona, which is always on standard time. It will take me days to reset my clock. Meanwhile, I will probably be getting up in the middle of the night to blog about things I don't understand and making up stories about people I do not know.
My point in using the little ox and fly metaphor is the following - more or less. Before I go any farther, I want to say that my ideas are mine alone - which will probably be more than obvious to anyone who reads this. This is part of my personal journey, as people like to say in our day. I suppose that it is a kind of philosophical and theological pilgrimage. So, by using important words like philosophical, theological, and pilgrimage, I may give my scrawlings greater weight.
You see, shortly before we left on our Holy Land pilgrimage, a kind friend introduced me to two wonderful traveling companions - besides my dear husband and the 20 other people who were with us on the trip. One was St. Thomas Aquinas and the other G.E.M. Anscombe. Well, there is a third, actually, in G.K. Chesterton who wrote a fine little biography of Thomas.
Here is what Chesterton said about Thomas.:
"St. Thomas was a huge heavy bull of a man, fat and slow and quiet; very mild
and magnanimous but not very sociable; shy, even apart from the humility of
holiness; and abstracted, even apart from his occasional and carefully concealed
experiences of trance or ecstasy."
(Christian Classics Etherial Library)
Later Thomas' classmates called him a dumb ox, since he seemed to be clueless in his studies.
Here is Chesterton's description of Thomas as a student.
"Among the students thronging into the lecture-rooms there was one student, conspicuous by his tall and bulky figure, and completely failing or refusing to be conspicuous for anything else. He was so dumb in the debates that his fellows began to assume an American significance in the word dumbness; for in that land it is a synonym for dullness. It is clear that, before long, even his imposing stature began to have only the ignominious immensity of the big boy left behind in the lowest form. He was called the Dumb Ox. He was the object, not merely of mockery, but of pity."
(CCEL)
The lecturer and schoolmaster, Albertus Magnus - and I have no idea who he was - began to work with the Ox. He then said, "You call him a Dumb Ox: I tell you this Dumb Ox shall bellow so loud that his bellowings will fill the world".
...and they did.
In fact, Thomas has had many disciples throughout the centuries. One of those was a woman named G.M.E. Anscombe, said to be the greatest woman philosopher of the 20th century. Sometimes I wonder why a woman of her stature would have to be put into the category of women philosophers and then judged the greatest. After all, philosophy is not football or tennis. I do not see that her being a woman would have put her at some kind of disadvantage when compared to males of the same category.
I wonder who she thought was her equal among the male philosophers of her day, and if she thought she was less than they were just because she was a woman. In fact, I would guess that she had quite an advantage over the men, given the fact that she was the mother of 7 children! This would have given her a distinct and definite advantage, I would think. Anyway, that's how things go, and maybe making special categories for men and women in such disciplines as philosophy is all right and good, but still I wonder why.
Now I am reminded of a couple of years that I spent in discussion on a theology group online. One of my friends - and I had maybe 2 or 3 on the whole group of several hundred men - dared to see potential in me as a woman and told me that I was the best woman who had ever been in the group. Actually, I think I held my own with the guys when it was a fair fight - which it wasn't always. I did not feel as thought I needed to be part of a special category called women, nor did I feel like I was just one of the guys. Anyway, that's water under the bridge, and I had a good time skewering some arguments until they squealed and died - at least in my mind.
Years before the theology group I had been on another group, but I made a huge mistake. The moderator said frequently that he was open to discussion about anything he said. One time he started to promote a certain book, telling us that we should read it and then he would discuss it. So, silly girl me, I took him at his word. I read the book, which was so full of internal contradictions, not to mention theological errors, that it was quite easy to demolish, even for someone like me who has never studied logic and who has an undergrad understanding of theology. He refused to discuss it with me, and even tried to humiliate me. Not long after that he wanted me banned from the group. I am not sure how or why, but we broke one another's hearts - at least someone told me a long time later that I had broken his heart. I know he broke mine. Not sure how or why that happened, but I cannot turn back the clock.
Why did I share that? I don't know why. He's gone home now. Rest in peace. See you in the morning.
Now cracks a noble heart.Good night sweet prince:
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!
Maybe women should not invade the realm of males, like theology or philosophy. Theology may very well be the domain of males, and women should keep a safe distance. Men do theology like they do football. Men go to war over theology, even. I am reminded of mountain goats in the Canadian Rockies who bash their heads together over and over again in order to show which one is superior. Often, like Mountain Goats, no one really wins, but they all bellow. Now, that may be unkind, but it makes me smile to think of theology in those terms. I can let go of theology and allow the men to dominate that field.
But what about philosophy? To me it seems that women are well suited to philosophy in the sense of being lovers of wisdom. After all, the Bible even personifies Wisdom as a woman. (see Proverbs 4) Wisdom is certainly part of our domain, and we can be generous in allowing men to share in our wisdom as well.
Also, as I think many already know, the Greek word for wisdom is the feminine noun, sophia - σοφία.
I know that formal philosophy is much more complex than that. It has to do with formulating logical arguments in a serious way. It is a fine science as well as an art. For me, that will not be something I am able to do well. However, by focusing on two great Christian philosophers - Aquinas and Anscombe - I will be better off as a human being than before I started this journey. One is a man and a Saint. The other is a woman and the mother of 7 children - a true feminist.
Also, I want to read them - Aquinas and Anscombe - in their own words, with translation of course in the case of Aquinas. I am not so interested in reading about them right now, except for the very fine book by Chesterton on St. Thomas Aquinas.
So, Anscombe has become a focus of interest for me, along with her teacher, Aquinas.
...and I'm probably all wrong about many things, but I want to know the truth - or rather, the One who is Truth. As Chesterton said, "...the appetite for truth may outlast and even devour all the duller appetites of man." ...or woman for that matter.
So, this little Mosca is going to sit on top of the cacho of that great Buey and enjoy the view and the ride.
5
This is a saying that I learned in Chile. Actually, Wikipedia lists this as a Chilean proverb and uses the plural of cacho - los cachos. I will explain why I am using the singular - el cacho - but first let me attempt a free translation of the proverb. I am sure that there is an English equivalent saying, but I'll just go with my own creative translation of this one.
So, here goes the translation first, along with a great deal of poetic licence, and a little story.
"Let's get going! We have some plowing to do, dear Ox!" That's what the little fly said to the great Ox as she was sitting on top of one of his giant horns. The Ox, in his humility as great and generous as his large body, kindly allowed Mosca, the little fly, to find a seat. "Get comfortable, dear little Mosca," he said. 'We have a long way to go. We will never see things the same way again if we head out. I am following the Way that is Way itself. I am plowing new ground, but it is really not new at all. Let's get going, little fly friend. My pace is slow but steady."
Okay, so, I just got back from a trip to the Holy Land, and my internal clock is all messed up. To make matters worse, today we return to standard time here in the US - except Arizona, which is always on standard time. It will take me days to reset my clock. Meanwhile, I will probably be getting up in the middle of the night to blog about things I don't understand and making up stories about people I do not know.
My point in using the little ox and fly metaphor is the following - more or less. Before I go any farther, I want to say that my ideas are mine alone - which will probably be more than obvious to anyone who reads this. This is part of my personal journey, as people like to say in our day. I suppose that it is a kind of philosophical and theological pilgrimage. So, by using important words like philosophical, theological, and pilgrimage, I may give my scrawlings greater weight.
You see, shortly before we left on our Holy Land pilgrimage, a kind friend introduced me to two wonderful traveling companions - besides my dear husband and the 20 other people who were with us on the trip. One was St. Thomas Aquinas and the other G.E.M. Anscombe. Well, there is a third, actually, in G.K. Chesterton who wrote a fine little biography of Thomas.
Here is what Chesterton said about Thomas.:
"St. Thomas was a huge heavy bull of a man, fat and slow and quiet; very mild
and magnanimous but not very sociable; shy, even apart from the humility of
holiness; and abstracted, even apart from his occasional and carefully concealed
experiences of trance or ecstasy."
(Christian Classics Etherial Library)
Later Thomas' classmates called him a dumb ox, since he seemed to be clueless in his studies.
Here is Chesterton's description of Thomas as a student.
"Among the students thronging into the lecture-rooms there was one student, conspicuous by his tall and bulky figure, and completely failing or refusing to be conspicuous for anything else. He was so dumb in the debates that his fellows began to assume an American significance in the word dumbness; for in that land it is a synonym for dullness. It is clear that, before long, even his imposing stature began to have only the ignominious immensity of the big boy left behind in the lowest form. He was called the Dumb Ox. He was the object, not merely of mockery, but of pity."
(CCEL)
The lecturer and schoolmaster, Albertus Magnus - and I have no idea who he was - began to work with the Ox. He then said, "You call him a Dumb Ox: I tell you this Dumb Ox shall bellow so loud that his bellowings will fill the world".
...and they did.
In fact, Thomas has had many disciples throughout the centuries. One of those was a woman named G.M.E. Anscombe, said to be the greatest woman philosopher of the 20th century. Sometimes I wonder why a woman of her stature would have to be put into the category of women philosophers and then judged the greatest. After all, philosophy is not football or tennis. I do not see that her being a woman would have put her at some kind of disadvantage when compared to males of the same category.
I wonder who she thought was her equal among the male philosophers of her day, and if she thought she was less than they were just because she was a woman. In fact, I would guess that she had quite an advantage over the men, given the fact that she was the mother of 7 children! This would have given her a distinct and definite advantage, I would think. Anyway, that's how things go, and maybe making special categories for men and women in such disciplines as philosophy is all right and good, but still I wonder why.
Now I am reminded of a couple of years that I spent in discussion on a theology group online. One of my friends - and I had maybe 2 or 3 on the whole group of several hundred men - dared to see potential in me as a woman and told me that I was the best woman who had ever been in the group. Actually, I think I held my own with the guys when it was a fair fight - which it wasn't always. I did not feel as thought I needed to be part of a special category called women, nor did I feel like I was just one of the guys. Anyway, that's water under the bridge, and I had a good time skewering some arguments until they squealed and died - at least in my mind.
Years before the theology group I had been on another group, but I made a huge mistake. The moderator said frequently that he was open to discussion about anything he said. One time he started to promote a certain book, telling us that we should read it and then he would discuss it. So, silly girl me, I took him at his word. I read the book, which was so full of internal contradictions, not to mention theological errors, that it was quite easy to demolish, even for someone like me who has never studied logic and who has an undergrad understanding of theology. He refused to discuss it with me, and even tried to humiliate me. Not long after that he wanted me banned from the group. I am not sure how or why, but we broke one another's hearts - at least someone told me a long time later that I had broken his heart. I know he broke mine. Not sure how or why that happened, but I cannot turn back the clock.
Why did I share that? I don't know why. He's gone home now. Rest in peace. See you in the morning.
Now cracks a noble heart.Good night sweet prince:
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!
Maybe women should not invade the realm of males, like theology or philosophy. Theology may very well be the domain of males, and women should keep a safe distance. Men do theology like they do football. Men go to war over theology, even. I am reminded of mountain goats in the Canadian Rockies who bash their heads together over and over again in order to show which one is superior. Often, like Mountain Goats, no one really wins, but they all bellow. Now, that may be unkind, but it makes me smile to think of theology in those terms. I can let go of theology and allow the men to dominate that field.
But what about philosophy? To me it seems that women are well suited to philosophy in the sense of being lovers of wisdom. After all, the Bible even personifies Wisdom as a woman. (see Proverbs 4) Wisdom is certainly part of our domain, and we can be generous in allowing men to share in our wisdom as well.
Also, as I think many already know, the Greek word for wisdom is the feminine noun, sophia - σοφία.
I know that formal philosophy is much more complex than that. It has to do with formulating logical arguments in a serious way. It is a fine science as well as an art. For me, that will not be something I am able to do well. However, by focusing on two great Christian philosophers - Aquinas and Anscombe - I will be better off as a human being than before I started this journey. One is a man and a Saint. The other is a woman and the mother of 7 children - a true feminist.
Also, I want to read them - Aquinas and Anscombe - in their own words, with translation of course in the case of Aquinas. I am not so interested in reading about them right now, except for the very fine book by Chesterton on St. Thomas Aquinas.
So, Anscombe has become a focus of interest for me, along with her teacher, Aquinas.
...and I'm probably all wrong about many things, but I want to know the truth - or rather, the One who is Truth. As Chesterton said, "...the appetite for truth may outlast and even devour all the duller appetites of man." ...or woman for that matter.
So, this little Mosca is going to sit on top of the cacho of that great Buey and enjoy the view and the ride.
5
Lilith, the Free - Part 1
Okay, so anyone who knows me knows that I tend to have some pretty unpopular ideas about what it means to be a woman, wife, and mother. In reality, what I think about these subjects pretty much line up with traditional Christianity, which ideas are extremely unpopular at this point in time. I have never quite gotten over the image and ideal of a woman like June Cleaver. Sure, no one can live up to that image, but it is a beautiful one.
You have a loving and wise wife and mother in June. She was always willing to help her husband and sons work through whatever difficulties they were facing in life. Her husband and children, as well as an assortment of neighbor children and family friends respected her. Her husband trusted her, and he listened to her counsel.
I understand that Barbara Billingsly, the actress who played June Cleaver, was very much like that in real life. Jerry Mathers, the actor who played Beaver, has talked about how Barbara was a lot like a mother to him. So, why should I think that June Cleaver could never be a real person? Of course, the television series was a gentle comedy, so it did not assault our senses and sensibilities like some shows do. So, I think we as women would do well to honor June Cleaver. Why would it be such a bad thing to model her values in our lives?
You have a loving and wise wife and mother in June. She was always willing to help her husband and sons work through whatever difficulties they were facing in life. Her husband and children, as well as an assortment of neighbor children and family friends respected her. Her husband trusted her, and he listened to her counsel.
I understand that Barbara Billingsly, the actress who played June Cleaver, was very much like that in real life. Jerry Mathers, the actor who played Beaver, has talked about how Barbara was a lot like a mother to him. So, why should I think that June Cleaver could never be a real person? Of course, the television series was a gentle comedy, so it did not assault our senses and sensibilities like some shows do. So, I think we as women would do well to honor June Cleaver. Why would it be such a bad thing to model her values in our lives?
St. John Chrysostom influenced my understanding of marriage and family life as well. He was able by the grace of God to do such a fine job of laying out a vision for Christian marriage because of his dear friend, St. Olympia. She was a widow and one of John's best buddies- or that's how I like to imagine it. I can see them sitting together, out in an olive garden, drinking tea and talking the most important, the deepest kind of philosophy - how human relations mirror the relationship between Christ and the Church. How I wish I could have been a fly on the wall, listening in on their conversations! The result of their deep friendship and mutual respect was Chrysostom's fine series of homilies On Marriage and Family Life.
I want to be a Christian wife and mother - and now grandmother. Unfortunately, what I will call my inner Lilith gets in the way of that goal a lot more than I care to acknowledge. So, as I talk about the Lilith myth, please bear in mind that I am mostly talking about myself. Please forgive me if you read this and feel minimized or hurt in any way. That is not my intention at all. this is part of my journey to understand and live out my freedom in Christ as His little girl.
So, here goes. Again, I beg your kindness and even forgiveness if I say anything that comes across as harsh or unkind.
Besides, I may be wrong, but I think that I am at least finding the center of where I need to be. Here goes. Here is how I understand Lilith.
---------------------------------------------------
Lilith cries freedom and equality.1. Freedom from marriage.
2. Freedom from motherhood.
3. Freedom from any symbol of her place in God's created order.
Lilith says that her humanity does not depend on being a wife and a mother. Her humanness is something else. Setting herself free from what she believes to be accidents of femininity is what Lilith gives herself to. In fact, women should not even worry about what femininity means. It is society and culture that impose their ideas of who women are and what we should be doing. It is men who wish to oppress women, keeping us as a permanent underclass.
For Lilith, being a wife is not part of essential human nature. Being a mother is not an essential part of being a human being either. She especially despises the very idea of putting some kind of symbolic covering on her head. For Lilith, the very idea that there could be some kind of male authority over her is repulsive. In fact, Lilith rejects all forms of hierarchy.
Women who submit to the helpmeet role and the mothering role are in grave danger of being abused, according to Lilith. Such women will not be able to meet their full human potential. Lilith has set herself free from such oppressive ideas.
If you Google "Lilith", you will see many interesting articles on the subject of the Lilith myth. My blogging is not meant in any way to be an academic exercise - something I would not be able to pull off even if I wanted to. This is part of my personal journey, and I invite you to come along with me if you like.
Lilith, to me, is a personification of what feminism has come to mean in our society. Lilith is why many of us women avoid identifying ourselves as feminists, even those of us who are very concerned about the equality of women. Personally, I see being a helpmeet and a mother as an essential part of my femininity, not accidents. If I am able, I will try to explain why, and why Lilith is getting it wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)