the duchess be with you

Amidst what is quickly becoming one of the scariest and least stable years I can remember, this week news broke of some incredibly minor shenanigans at the college where I did my theological training, Westcott House. Some students organised an evensong in polari, a language that’s been developed and used by gay subcultures in the past few decades. Articles about the college’s ‘apology’ and ‘repentance’ over this service showed up in the Grauniad, the Torygraph, and the Beeb. Even NPR picked the story up, so I’m told.

I don’t really want to get into the internal politics of the situation here — though let it be known that I am entirely in support of the students who planned the service and think that they have been rather awfully thrown under the bus by some of their peers and their supervisors. What I want to muse about is *what is so offensive* about the language that was used, what is so terrifying to the religious establishment.

Complaints were made that a ‘polari bible translation’ was used. This translation uses the word Gloria in place of Godthe Duchess in place of the Lord, Josie in place of Jesus, and the Fairy fantabulosa  in place of the Holy Spirit — amongst many other substitutions. These choices and others were seen by some to undermine the historic doctrine of the church, as well as make an unhelpful contribution to the currently very-hot-indeed issues around sexuality in the Church of England. This same week, the C of E bishops issued a statement which confirmed no change in some traditional teachings around sex and marriage (not surprising, but still sad). This statement urged churches, where necessary, to repent of their homophobia and to ‘change the tone’ of their engagement around issues of (particularly queer) sexuality. I could write multiple posts about the bishops’ statement; right now I want simply to note the synchronicity of these two events.

So — back to the ‘polari bible‘ and its paraphrase of scripture, particularly its use of female God-language. Those who know me will know how dear to my heart this issue is; how incredibly important I believe it is that people of faith are enabled to see how patriarchy & phallocentrism is harmful, especially in the way we speak about God.  The God of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures refers to Herself in female terms, metaphors, and pronouns as well as male. [1]  Many reasonable theologians and biblical scholars accept this. However, it is one thing to accept the concept that ‘God is neither male nor female but both and, more importantly, beyond’. (Not all Christians accept this! If I had a nickel for the number of times I’d sat across a table from a Christian, usually a man, and been told that ‘God is not a man, but God is male!’ well, I’d probably be able to buy a coffee at Starbucks.)

It is one thing to accept this concept and quite another thing to put it into practice. Still, today, the feminine, and especially the female (see footnote for disambiguation) tends to make churchy people incredibly squeamish. [2] Even churchy people with a high regard for Mary or female saints. [3]  Why is this? I think it comes down to the famous dictum of radical feminist Mary Daly: ‘If God is male, then male is God.’ If people’s overwhelming linguistic means for describing, praising, and speaking to God is male or masculine — if we project onto God a man’s face, stereotypical properties, even genitals — then it is not long before they, before we, project what we perceive to be Godly attributes onto the males of the species, and those who display more culturally ‘masculine’ attributes.

By tightly orthodox Christian standards, polari is an intentionally irreverent, transgressive, thoroughly ‘indecent’ language  — I am reminded of Marcella Althaus-Reid’s ‘indecent theology’. The ‘polari bible’ was produced by the queer activist group the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. They’re an activist group, not a religious order. But it’s funny how the lines between activism and religion blur and swerve: how many nuns one finds on protest lines, how much space the church has made, perhaps quite unintentionally over the years, for (often closeted) gay men.

God as Gloria – Jesus as Josie – the Holy Spirit as the fantabulosa Fairy. What is it that offends people here? I ask about offence, not theology, right now. Why do these titles make people physically and mentally cringe, even before they marshal theological arguments? Changing the address ‘Lord’ to ‘Duchess’…aside from the variation in gentry rank [4], what is the problem? How are they different?

They are different, of course, because of gender. Christians are so accustomed to God as Zeus, or the Trinity as ‘two men and a bird’. We imbibe the patriarchy of the earlier centuries and millennia which produced our holy texts, and we continue imbibing the patriarchy of today which denigrates the female, and the feminine, and finds them nauseating. We perpetuate this.

To protect ourselves from realising how much of this debate is about offence and internalised, institutionalised misogyny (and homophobia), we marshal theological arguments: ‘If God were female, then God would have been incarnate as a woman, surely’; in short, ‘because Jesus was male, God cannot be at all female’. Such an argument willingly ignores St Paul’s writings on people of all genders, ethnicities, and classes as literally the body of Christ, spiritualising the bible’s words beyond all significant meaning (a heresy which is usually referred to as Gnosticism).

Alternatively, even if we can admit that God might be, somehow, in some way, female as well as male, or beyond gender, we stick to the safety of male God-language. Perhaps we stick in a bit of language around God’s ‘midwifery’ or ‘nurturing love’, but do we make that leap to God as Her, She, Mother, or Sister? Do we address God as such in the depths of our beings? I am convinced that until we learn to do so, it is very difficult to nail the last nail in the coffin of our culture’s, and our religion’s, debts to patriarchy.

The polari bible is not meant as a serious biblical translation. I don’t know for sure, but I’d reckon that no biblical scholars were consulted in its production. Raise all the questions you want about the wisdom of using that bible in a theological college evensong. The fact remains that the move in that service towards female God language, though in jest, is primarily what scares the significantly male-dominated global religious establishment — not just a branch of the Church of England. The fear felt by the establishment is the reaction to the removal of privilege: in this case, the privilege that comes particularly to men when God is imaged exclusively as male.

Such fear so often becomes hatred. Whether we call it homophobia or misogyny or not, that is what it is. No amount of card shuffling, of attempting to shift the debate back onto ‘real theological issues’ can detract from the fact that the church has demonstrated once again its deep unease, distrust, and ultimate rejection of the female, and with the queer. And believe me, those of us who are female and/or queer and love Jesus feel this rejection sharply, like swords piercing the soul.

 

__

[1] An accessible book on this topic is ‘Is it Okay to Call God Mother?’ by Paul Smith.

[2] I draw a distinction between ‘the feminine’ and ‘female’ because, it seems apparent to me, that while people are born male, female, or intersex; they are also born with brains, bodies, and personalities that miraculously mix and combine traits which various cultures assign (variously!) as more ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’.

[3]  I do think, as I have argued elsewhere, that part of the reason for the strength of the cult of Mary and of female saints is the lack of space that many Christians find in their God-images, and God-language, for anything female.

[4] The Sister of Perpetual Indulgence are an American group. We Americans don’t really do gentry titles. We find them quite queer.

 

Advertisements

Clare of Assisi is Very Much Awesome

Me again, shamelessly stealing other people’s representations of awesome women and supplying captions of dubious hilarity. This time: Clare (or Ciara) of Assisi. First woman to be granted her own Rule of Life for a religious community. The one who kept Francis on the straight and narrow when he wanted to go become a hermit instead of shepherding the burgeoning Franciscan movement. General badass.

Let’s go!

c1

Do you know how long I’ve been carrying this monstrance? A long, long time. Bow down, already.

c5

Can’t…carry…monstrance…anymore…must…lie…down…

c7

Those bitches are lame. I can carry this thing with ONE HAND and also SAY THE ROSARY AT THE SAME TIME.

c2

I AM THE SAINTLY EQUIVALENT OF THE STAY PUFT MARSHMALLOW (WO)MAN IN THE WOMEN-ONLY GHOSTBUSTERS.

c3

I am wearing a star and smiling and I want to introduce you to my friend Jes–Wait! Jesus! Where’d you go?

c4

I am wearing a saucy little one-shouldered 12th century number but refusing to marry any dudes. Instead I am going to found a ladies-only religious community where we don’t even have to talk to dudes. #misandry

c6

It’s OK Francis, I didn’t need that hair anyway. Or the blonde jokes.

c8

I SAIL ON CLOUDS AND SAVE CHILDREN FROM WOLVES. WELL AT LEAST MOST OF ONE.

c12

But can you save a ship from drowning? I can!

c9

I am so fabulous I have my own personal Madame Tussaud’s in the crypt of my very own basilica! Beat that.

c11

Um Janice — what the hell are you doing? There’s no need to check out my holy feet.

c14

I’m not actually the patron saint of cats but this one is my friend. I’m a Franciscan, after all.

 

 

Typography (mapping of typos)

One of the best things about being engaged in a long-term writing project is the number of amusing number of typos, suggested corrections, etc. For example, so far this week:

  1. I typed ‘encuntered’ instead of ‘encountered’. I personally think ‘encuntered’ should be a word, and I am taking recommendations for definitions of this word.
  2. Autocorrect suggested ‘jockstrap’ when I mistyped ‘curacies’. HOW are these two words related, Autocorrect?
  3. I typed ‘ambivalance’ instead of ‘ambivalence’, the former being a lance which can’t decide which way to go. Because jousting metaphors are so useful when one is writing practical theology, obviously.
  4. I typed ‘tweetable’ which, thank sweet baby Jesus, isn’t really a word and my spellcheck refuses to recognise it as such. But then I decided a well-placed hyphen could not only change it into ‘tweet-able’, as intended, but also ‘twee-table’, a much more interesting concept. What makes a table twee?  Also, I feel like this is a potentially excellent cryptic crossword answer.
  5. I typed ‘bigtoed’ instead of ‘bigoted’. Make of that what you will.