Tuesday, August 22, 2017

The power of thoughts

When I’m working in the kitchen, I’m always listening to MPR/NPR. My attention waxes and wanes, depending on the fare. One day I focused sharply on the radio when I detected the talk of a scientific materialist. Quickly I grabbed paper and pen and wrote down the words of the neuroscientist:
All of our behavior comes from our brain. It’s a matter of chemistry, not character.
I believe the opposite. Our brains are the physical counterpart of our minds. They merely register what’s happening in our thoughts. When the patterns of our thoughts change, our brains change. 
Cells and molecules in our brains do not control our behavior. Our thoughts do. 
But what hidden thoughts are directing my life? That’s the question. Do I believe that I’m safer with people who look like me? That poverty is more virtuous than wealth? That struggles are holier than success? That I should always prefer others to myself?

We are not aware of everything in our consciousness. Hidden beliefs control us.

I first encountered this idea of hidden consciousness decades ago and have been working with it ever since. It helped me to see defeating patterns in my life. “Oh no, not that again!” I’d think when the same challenge would occur with different people. Well, a pattern in my consciousness was attracting that pattern to my outer life.

When I became aware of the patterns and beliefs pulling those experiences into my life, I could change outcomes with my thoughts. Easy to say, not easy to do, but over time I have made surprising improvements in my life. I keep working on changing the mental patterns that kept me sick and poor for much of my life.

I believe our total consciousness creates our reality—our beliefs, expectations, feelings, attitudes, and intentions. Becoming aware of and harnessing them gives us enormous power. The neuroscientist who believes our brains control our lives is mistaken. Not our physical matter, but our non-physical mental activity, directs our lives.

Scroll down to read how quantum science supports the power of thought.
More about Mind Over Matter next time.  

Thursday, July 27, 2017

My spiritual Atheist Friend

I’m coming off a satisfying discussion with a thoughtful atheist friend I’ll call Ben. We’ve known each other for about 30 years but hadn’t seen each other since he moved to take a position far away. We kept communicating. Finally he returned to central Minnesota to visit me and others. What draws us together? We both are in thrall to metaphysical questions.

I do not know a person with more integrity than my atheist friend Ben; I don’t know anyone more principled. I also like him because he and I agree on everything except the biggest questions of existence. We agree on politics and on much about religion.

The morning before our talk, I submitted a letter to National Catholic Reporter in response to a trial Eucharistic Prayer that its author says reflects “the quantum-cosmological-developmental-evolutionary worldview” of today. Its topic was a fitting introduction to the discussion of metaphysical matters that Ben and I had later in the day.

The morning after our pleasant and scintillating talk, I woke up before 4:00 a.m. a little dizzy from a whoosh of thoughts coming in quick succession. Dozens of times I turned on the bedside lamp to write them down. Always I had to turn the light off for the next thought to surface.  Interesting, that it took darkness for them to show themselves.

This fact is not irrelevant to the issue crowding my mind, the Inner Realm, which likes to show itself in unobtrusive, hidden ways. Parker Palmer says it’s like looking for wild animals. You have to wait quietly in the woods a while before they show themselves. Darkness and my letting go allowed more messages from that Inner Realm to show themselves.

After talks with Ben, my mind teems with points I want to make in debating him. I hope he would agree that ours is a relationship of mutual respect.

He has moved past the place where atheists I know and read—Ben an exception—stay stuck, railing against institutional religion. Many atheists seem to think the sins of religion prove there is no God. But the wrongs of institutional religions—their stupidity, hypocrisy, corruption, and so on—prove nothing about what's called "God."

It also is pointless to stop at saying, "I don't believe in God," because the question is this: What idea of God do you not believe in?  When they profess disbelief, atheists argue against the least elevated God-concept coming from religion. That dumb idea booted me out of religion into the lap of atheism years ago.

No religion owns what is called “God.” It does not take orders from the pope or anyone else.

I admit I also rail at institutional religion, specifically its sexist God-talk. Christian prayers teach Christians to think God is like humans, only more perfect. A speaker on MPR once caught my attention by saying that we can’t say what God is any more than a horse can say what a human mind is.

Male terms for God such as Lord/King/Father/Son-—what I call sexist God-talk because Lady/Mother/Daughter are not accepted—cramp understanding of what is called “God.” Inclusive God-names would broaden understanding. I like these: Source, Creator, Divinity, Spirit, Force, Guide, Love. And mixing up genders, naming the Source both “Mother” and “Father,” would suggest the foolishness of trying to define God.

Ben accepts the fact of consciousness. After all, quantum science makes it irrefutable. But Ben does not interpret consciousness as I do. I see consciousness—our thoughts, beliefs, feelings, attitudes, expectations, and intentions—as evidence of spiritual reality. He doubts there is anything but physical reality.

I take from Teilhard de Chardin the view that there is a within distinct from the without, and Teilhard calls the within “consciousness.” 

Ben used to be sure that the physical brain gives rise to thoughts, that physical stuff creates non-physical stuff. Now that quantum science forces physicists to admit that consciousness creates physical reality on the quantum level, he isn’t so sure. To me, the findings of quantum physics evince our spiritual selves.

All our physical actions flow from our mind activity or consciousness. Our consciousness creates our reality. I find support for my opinion in a book by two physicists. I think Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner demonstrates, irrefutably, that consciousness or mind activity creates physical reality. So “Consciousness” is another possible God-name.

Those who share my fascination with these questions are depriving themselves if they don’t study Quantum Enigma. A theologian, Vincent Smiles, recommended the book to me, and an amateur physicist recommended it to Ben, who hasn't read it yet. Because science is not my area of strength, I skip parts that go into torturous (in my view) explanation of how experiments are set up and carried out. “Get to the result!” I say. I’m writing this to encourage others who might be bored or intimidated by science.

When I read Quantum Enigma, when I so much as open the book and reread parts I highlighted, my heart races. It is so exciting!

Science, theology, and philosophy today are moving closer together. They used to repudiate each other; they used to refute each other. Today they converge as science finds evidence for what religions have been pointing to, symbolically, for millennia. The Inner Realm exists in, under, around, and through outer reality.

Saturday, July 15, 2017

One-room Public/Catholic School

I haven’t blogged because I’m working on my memoir. Asking for input on rural schools in Stearns County, I received this wonderful description by Bernadette Weber, OSB.
It will delight some; it might dismay others.
Here is just a snapshot of my grade school life.
Attending District 125 Public Country School was a rich experience.
 Being among 50 students in 8 grades with one teacher helped us be creative in using our time.
When in the lower and middle grades, I would listen to the interesting classes of the upper grades.
      We had wardrobes to keep our coats etc. (one for the boys and one for the girls).
When I finished my assigned work, I got to take the first graders for reading class in the wordrobe. Although I wasn’t aware of it, that was my first practice teaching.
 We also had a library, so could spend time reading books.

    In our school all the students and the teacher were Catholic. When I think about it, we were like a parochial school. We had a crucifix in the classroom and had Bible History classes twice a week and The Baltimore Catechism the other three days.
     We probably got more religion than parochial school students. We also went to religion classes on Saturdays.
On Sundays the pastor would ask catechism questions from the pulpit.

We got to participate at the county fair. I remember being in the exclamatory contest. There were also spelling bees.

     Recess time we usually played with our classmates.  The classes had their sections of the playground in which to play their choice of games.
Of course, anyone who could play ball did so. The pump for our drinking water was in the way when we played, so we had to be careful. My sister, knocked out a tooth bumping into the pump.

At the end of the school term we had a picnic. It wasn’t just food. We also had races of every kind: running races, sack races, high jumping., stilt walking.
Name it, we did it. We got our exercise at recess, at picnics and walking to school. My home was 2 ½ miles from school. Think of it: a first grader walking 5 miles a day.

Since we were in school with brothers and sisters, we never tattled. Anyway, with my parents the teacher was always right. Respect for authority was upheld.
We didn’t call it a wardrobe. We called it “the cloakroom.” I was pretty old before I figured out why it was called that. I went to the village school, not a one-room school, but this describes the culture of my childhood. Our school stood next to the church, priest’s house, and parish cemetery. We ate lunch in the parish hall.

Nora Luetmer, OSB, wrote a master’s thesis entitled, “The History of Catholic Education in the Diocese of St. Cloud: 1855-1965.” It shows that public schools in the county were treated like parochial schools. During my school days—in the 1950s—it changed.

During my primary grades, the priest came into school to teach catechism. By my seventh and eighth grades, the public school changed from just acting Catholic to becoming legally a Catholic parochial school funded by the parish. Some parishioners couldn’t understand why they should pay taxes for education twice. 

Wednesday, June 14, 2017


The opposite of poverty isn’t wealth.
The opposite of poverty is justice.

. . . hundreds of people in hoodies, heavy coats, and wool blankets braced against the wind. . . . dentists arriving from five states were getting ready to fix the teeth of the first 1,000 people in line.
. . . better-off Americans spend over $1 billion each year just to make their teeth a few shades whiter. Millions of others rely on charity clinics and hospital ERs to treat painful and neglected teeth. Unable to afford expensive root canals and crowns, many simply have them pulled.
. . . . . .
She looked at some of the others who had come here, despite working for a living cutting down trees, building homes, minding a town library, running small businesses.
“We are not staying home, not sleeping and living off the government,” she said. She tried not to look at the 51-year-old truck driver lying next to her who’d had three teeth pulled, his mouth stuffed with gauze. . . . [She said] “It’s like a Third World country.” 
      (Originally appeared in The Washington Post)
Something is seriously wrong when people doing essential work for a society don’t get paid enough for medical care.
A new idea that might be the best solution for closing the obscene gap between rich and poor is popping up in magazines and public discourse. When I first heard of the UBI, I thought, “No way! Impractical!”

UBI stands for universal basic income or giving everybody, no matter what work or no work they do, a certain sum of money.
“I think they call this "communism," was the reaction from my friend Ron.

But serious economists are not scoffing. The Economist introduces the concept, and an article from theWorld Economic Forum details arguments for it.

On the downside, it would be expensive and take away the incentive to work. In the May 2017 issue of The Nation, Peter Barnes advocates a universal base income as distinct from basic income—only a few hundred dollars a month rather than enough to live on. 
It would cost the government less and pose no threat to the work ethic. If the sum were low enough, say $10,000 a year, most people would still have to work, but less likely out of despair or desperation at a job inappropriate for them.

A universal basic or base income would replace at least some social safety-net programs, making it less expensive for governments. And more money available to non-rich people would stimulate the economy by boosting household spending. If funded by taxing pollution and speculation such as Wall Street transactions, a UBI could help to solve more social problems.

I see implications for peace. It would reduce stress and friction between classes. Crime could drop dramatically—another saving for government. If funded by taxing pollution and speculation such as Wall Street transactions, a UBI could also help to solve societal problems. In the long run, I believe a UBI would save money besides immeasurably improving society.

If the UBI is not yet an idea whose time has come, it’s being tested experimentally. Barnes thinks a UBI could come to pass if enough groups worked for it. He suggests
millennials (the first generation earning less than their parents),
on-demand workers or temps,
African Americans,
retirees and near-retired,
and poor of all types. Together these groups make up a large part of the population.
This is a dream with real possibility.

Just for fun, learn about this cure for Trump-induced anxietydisorders.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Women Priests Ordained

May 9, 2017
Two more priests for the Catholic Church, which laments its shortage of priests, were ordained on Sunday, May 7, in a beautifully uplifting ceremony (more about this next time). Rosemarie Henzler and Maria Annoni would be happy to relieve the severe shortage of priests, but bullheaded, stubborn sexism will not allow it.

Some prominent Catholic women do not support ordination for women because they think it endorses clericalism. Sandra Schneiders is one, as the previous post indicates. When she spoke at Newman Center in St. Cloud, she made fun of women being ordained by likening them to goldfish devoured by sharks.

But the notion that ordained women are subsumed by or unwittingly endorse clericalism was invalidated on Sunday by newly-ordained Rose Henzler. She kindly granted me permission to publish her tribute to her mother.
My mother modeled for me how to persist against injustice in all forms but especially in my church—how to speak truth to power. As she was born in 1901, I’m thinking she probably never heard the phrase “speak truth to power,” but she practiced it.

She was blessed with an amazing mezzo soprano voice, and in 1921 when a young WWI soldier, who happened to be Protestant, heard her singing, it was love at first sight . . . or sound, I guess. When he asked her to marry him and she accepted, there was quite a “kerfluffle” (her word). She was forbidden by her pastor to marry “outside the faith.” He would not allow her to enter into a “mixed marriage!” Nevertheless, she persisted, and on August 19, 1922, he married them in a “hush-hush” ceremony in the church rectory so as “not to give scandal.”

They gave no scandal for the next 49 and a half years!

Soon she was singing not only at Mass and in Catholic weddings and funerals but for her new Protestant family members’ celebrations as well. The word got out and she was called in by the same poor pastor to discuss her egregious behavior. The bishop had instructed him to warn her that she could be excommunicated for her actions.

She answered simply that no matter where she sang, it was (in her own words) “for the honor and glory of God whether it is ‘Ave Maria’ or ‘How Great Thou Art’. I would do more harm than good by saying ‘No’ and I will continue to say ‘Yes’. So let him try it!”
Truth to power.

The threat never materialized and she continued saying “Yes” for the next 65 years and sang whenever and wherever she was asked, and not only for friends and family but when invited for priestly ordinations and even the installation of bishops.

My mother respected the clergy, but she had no time for clericalism, and her reputation for speaking her truth became known in the Archdiocese of St. Paul/ Minneapolis. She became the confidant as well as friend of many in the hierarchy, never hesitating to tell them when she perceived their actions to be less than charitable or loving. It seemed to me as a kid that there was always some priest or monsignor coming unannounced through the back door.
 She prayed—always—that perhaps somewhere among her numerous progeny there might be a priest or maybe two. Little could she know that when her prayer was answered, our God of glorious surprises said, it would be her baby girl.

Scroll down to "Women in 4th Gospel" for the reason I enthusiastically endorse Sandra Schneiders’ theology, despite my disagreement on the issue of women’s ordination.

May 18, 2017

Last week I featured Rose Henzler, one of two new Catholic women priests. Also ordained on May 7 was Maria Annoni, who experienced young adulthood during the exciting days of Vatican II. She took to heart its message, “WE are the church.”
At an early age, Maria rejected the traditional ministry of women—doing the servant-work of cleaning, cooking, etc. while male ministers took the honors of standing before others and proclaiming the Word. Maria did not join the altar guild but chose to minister by using her musical talent.

She spent 30 years as liturgy director in her music ministry, 21 of these in a Catholic parish, until she was let go because she had a partner of the same sex, another music minister. Though heartbroken, Maria persisted. 
She earned a Master of Theology degree at St. John’s University in Collegeville and prepared to become a Roman Catholic woman priest.  Today, she continues to serve in an Episcopal church as a musician and has her own community, Spirit of Christ, the Healer, which supported her desire to become a priest.

Maria and Rose, like all Catholic women priests, experience opposition from Catholic officials. I find this supremely ironic. The very definition of “minister”—to tend to others, to nurse, to care for—describes the ages-old work of women. Women also excel in building relationships. Many and diverse studies confirm the tendency of women to seek harmonious connections. Women are less comfortable with aggression, they notice sooner that someone is upset, they step in to sooth hurts.

The experience of women in sensitively managing relationships could enhance the ministry of priesthood, but women are the very members of the human race barred from it. The gender that has demonstrated its talent for tending to the needs of others and for bringing people together is barred from ministry. Those who give birth, who nourish babies and young ones—Mothers—are barred from ministry. Those most experienced in ministry are barred from it.

In prehistoric cultures, women had central roles in religious ceremonies, and She, the bearer of new life, was imaged Creator of the world. Patriarchy denounced Her as an abomination, declared God Lord and Father, and excluded women from priestly functions.

But Jesus ordained no one, and he broke his culture’s social norms by publicly interacting with women as equals to men. Abundant evidence shows that women were ordained in the early church.

Roman Catholic Womenpriests return the Church to standards set by Jesus and the first Christians. They act as a powerful force for gender justice and thus justice for all. For a quick read on the case for women’s ordination, read The Time Is Now.
* Contact me if you'd like a print copy.


The ordination of Catholic women in Minnesota on May 7 began with a stunning interruption of murmurs in the expectant congregation. Sublime sounds of a single vocalist quieted us with an exquisite performance of Bobby McFerrin’s 23rd Psalm. Its inclusive God-language filled my soul as much as the beautiful sounds.
She restores my soul, She rights my wrongs,
She leads me in a path of good things,
And fills my heart with songs.
The vocalist, I learned, was Catherine Fierro, professional singer and daughter of Rose Henzler, one of the newly-ordained. Cate’s daughters also sang during the Mass.

This psalm was only the beginning of musical treats. Maria Annoni, the other newly-ordained priest, informed me about the music director, Beth Kaiser:
Fellow musician, friend, and collaborator on many things liturgical, Beth coordinated musicians from the Grand Rapids area, Duluth, the Twin Cities, Elk River, and the St. Cloud area. She pulled all these gifted people together to make one sound—and what a sound it is.
Instrumentalists included flutist Julie Ellis, violinist Jean Leibfried, trumpet player Charlie Leibfried, percussionist Gregg Ciurleo, organist A.P. Hopper, and pianist Jeanne Cornish.
Director Beth Kaiser said,
I have had the privilege of working with all of the Duluth musicians (singers and instrumentalists) for various liturgies throughout the past 20+ years.
 There is no place I would have rather been than with this very special gathering of music ministers and serve as music director for such a joyous occasion.  And, the assembly... wow!  How wonderful to hear them raise the rafters in song.  THIS is what liturgy is supposed to do. Liturgy is SUNG PRAYER.  And, I believe this is what we experienced, fully.
Gender-neutral language in womanpriest Masses always refreshes me because I suffer from lord-talk in typical liturgies. It is a relief to hear, “Creator . . . Holy One . . . God, our Mother and Father.”
Bishop Nancy Meyer opened with the sign of the Cross,
We gather joyfully for this ordination in the name of God, Source of Being, Eternal Word and Holy Spirit.
At most Masses, I find particularly annoying the recitation at Communion,
Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof,
but only say the word and soul shall be healed.
It returns Catholics to the unhealthy attitude of the past when self-contempt was encouraged. At womanpriest Masses congregants recite,
Jesus, you make us worthy to receive you.
By your word we are healed.
Despite their significance as boosters of justice for women, womanpriest ceremonies are attended by few young people. Gray heads prevail. It does not distress me, because I believe we are entering a new spiritual paradigm. Young people in tune with the emerging paradigm move to non-traditional ways of satisfying their spiritual needs. Who are we to say our way is better?

Thank you, Jeanette. Sorry to have missed it. Ron Ohmann

May 31, 2017

I decided to add a sequel to my last post because I forgot to link to Bobby McFerrin's Psalm. Here I include all the lyrics, which evoke a warming Feminine Divinity.
The Lord is my Shepard, I have all I need
She makes me lie down in green meadows
Beside the still waters, She will lead
 She restores my soul, She rights my wrongs
She leads me in a path of good things
And fills my heart with songs
 Even though I walk, through a dark and dreary land
There is nothing that can shake me
She has said She won't forsake me
I'm in her hand
 She sets a table before me, in the presence of my foes
She anoints my head with oil
And my cup overflows
 Surely, surely goodness and kindness will follow me
All the days of my life
And I will live in her house
Forever, forever and ever
 Glory be to our Mother, and Daughter
And to the Holy of Holies
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be
World, without end                             Amen
Several You-Tube renditions are available. I link you to the one that leads to more Bobby McFerrin treats following the psalm. The video should lead to or you can link to the Bach-Guonod Ave Maria with McFerrin. I’d heard it before, never seen it before. It’s enchanting.

And THEN go on to more Bobby McFerrin videos. You should be able to just let it run or click links on the right. Notice how McFerrin combines music with bodily antics and adjusts his speech for his audience, depending on his venue. It’s impossible to avoid smiling.

I connect personally to the Bach-Guonod Ave Maria. My talented brother Arnold, who became Fr. Al, taught me to sing it as a solo for a grade school performance. He wrote the words from memory while admitting he wasn’t sure of their placement in the music. When I mentally sing along during a performance of it, I notice the discrepancies between their lyrics and the version he taught me.

Back to music at the ordination.
One of my favorites at every ordination is the litany because it allows the congregation to sing harmony. Musicians Terry Utter and Vern Bartos of our woman-priest community, Mary Magdalene, First Apostle, led it.
Vern tells us about the other opportunity for the congregation to harmonize:
The three daughters [of Catherine Fierro, therefore granddaughters of Rose Henzler] started the song, Veni Sante Spiritus, and then we as choir came in with four part voices which gave the song a "mantra" sound and coloration.
Then towards the end, the choir began to fade out and the three ended the song with us very quietly in the background. As I recall, at one point the three daughters also sang at least two-part voice.

Yes, it was a beautifully put-together music menu for the double ordination.
If you'd like more Bobby McFerrin, here he does the pentatonic scale. 

Friday, April 14, 2017

Women in the 4th Gospel

I want atheists to know that I am mindful of them when I write about Christian theology. I hope they stay with me to see its relevance to them, although a presentation by theologian Sandra Schneiders is my subject.

Schneiders renewed my attraction to the Fourth Gospel. Years ago, when I became aware of Christian myth and broke out of the Christian envelope, I didn’t like the Fourth for the same reason that most Christians favor it—because it does the best job of turning Jesus into God. I recall the time a fellow writer, a minister, learned that I did not believe Jesus is God.
“But he said, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life.’”
“The historical Jesus did not say these things,” I answered. The minister knew I studied theology. He never came back to our writers group.

Then I read an article by a Hindu who finds the I AM passages in the Fourth ravishingly beautiful. They leave him “in an uplifted internal state” by evoking the Divinity in every individual, irrespective of religious or non-religious beliefs. [For non-religious, substitute “Inner Intelligence or Moral Sense” for “Divinity.”]
I AM the shepherd, I AM the door, the vine, the bread of life, the light of the world, I AM the way, the truth, and the life. The Hindu writer recognized the I AM inside each of us.

Years later, someone in my womanpriest community, Mary Magdalene, First Apostle, brought evidence that Mary Magdalene was the Beloved Disciple in the Fourth Gospel and its founding author. I know this sounds preposterous when you first hear it. I hope you change your mind when you read my post, Mary Magdalene authored the 4th Gospel.

Now Sandra Schneiders gives me new reason to cherish this gospel. She points out that it has four strong women, not one-dimensional as women often are portrayed, but more tough-minded, unconventional, courageous, committed, and powerful than men in the gospels. The women are capable of rational intelligence and interact with Jesus unmediated by men.

The Samaritan woman at the well (Chapter 4) converts her whole Samaritan town. Martha of Bethany (Chapter 11) leads her household, and her confession in Jn 11:27 surpasses Peter’s in Mt 16:16. Mary of Bethany (Chapter 12) anoints the feet of Jesus, who defends her— “Leave her alone,” —when Judas protests her extravagance. Most impressive, Mary Magdalene is the first to witness the risen Christ (Chapter 20).

Whatever your religious or non-religious beliefs, these women protagonists should impress you with their unconventional, effective leadership. They break the mold of stereotypical portrayals of women.

I am grateful to Sandra Schneiders for renewing my respect and appreciation for the Fourth Gospel. My summary here does not do justice to her theological analysis. But two points made by Schneiders I see differently.

1)  In criticizing the Church for its “canonized prejudice” (this phrase raised delighted laughter in her listeners), she stated that the overarching problem in the Church’s treatment of women, that from which all others flow, is clericalism. I don’t think it’s the main problem.

2)  Schneiders scoffed at Catholic women priests because they participate in clericalism. True. But Roman Catholic Womenpriests (RCWP) are well aware of this. I agree with them that, nevertheless, women’s ordination is an effective way to resist the official Church’s mistreatment of women. And as individuals, Catholic women priests model non-clericalism.

1)  I think it is not clericalism but the patriarchal concept of what we call “God” that trumps every other sexist sin in Christianity. Everything would change, almost effortlessly, if the faithful were allowed to conceptualize the Highest Value imaginable as feminine.

If Truth, Beauty, Goodness, Intelligence, Power—whatever one holds highest—were called “Mother,” everything would change. If appeals to Mother or “Her” became as commonplace as appeals to “Lord Father Him,” church people and people around the world, whatever their beliefs, would experience less sexism, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and every other kind of bigotry and would be less cruelly violent. The damage done by the patriarchal god of Western religion negatively impacts everything in human experience.

After the presentation and questions, I asked Schneiders whether she agreed that Mary Magdalene could have been the Beloved Disciple and the author of the Fourth. She agreed. “But of course, it can’t be proven.” Of course.

Again, I invite you to Mary Magdalene authored the 4thGospel and hope you find the evidence as mind-blowingly revelatory as I did.

Monday, March 27, 2017

Did God have a wife?

A provocative series is airing on PBS: “Bible’s Buried Secrets.” The most subversive segment, “Did God have a wife?” (video) captured the most attention from me. I wondered whether it would spill intoxicating information I have garnered over years of doing feminist research.    

“Did God have a wife?” did not seem feminist to me during most of the hour, although its female scholar, Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou, reaches for provocation. Her main point is that common perceptions about the Bible and God as taught by the Judaeo/Christian tradition are upended by archaeological finds. They show that Hebrew ancestors of the Jews did not practice monotheism. Jews also did not invent monotheism, but that point was less clear in the documentary.

For hundreds of thousands of years, what is called God was a woman. She had many different names, but She was not rivaled by males. They were her consorts, not her superiors. The Great Mother gave life, and what we would call “genealogies” centered on mothers, not fathers. This information is missing in the documentary, which gives prominence to Baal and El, male Gods.

But now I’ll look at virtues of “Did God have a wife?” Its photos of archaeological digs and figurines found in them excited me. I am a strong proponent of educating people, and what better way to do it than a TV program? I’d never before seen figurines of Baal, El, and Asherah—they were fascinating.

Dr. Stavrakopoulou directs our attention to symbols surrounding Asherah on figurines of Her found in digs. They display Her life-giving powers—prominent breasts and sacred pubic triangle. These were revered by ancient cultures. She birthed new life; She was the tree of life; She was the one saying, “Be fruitful and multiply,” not a lord.

When patriarchy conquered mother-centered cultures, sacred life-giving power was stolen from the Divine Feminine and given to a male God-image—the Lord. In a similar patriarchal do-over, the Greeks stole Her life-giving power by having Zeus manage a kind of birth (more complete story below).

Asherah’s image was accompanied by a branch with leaves representing Nature. At shrines, wooden poles or trees representing Asherah were held sacred. Most biblical references to Asherah—40 of them—are obscured by references to these “sacred poles.” The Lord orders them destroyed, as in Deuteronomy 7:5 and 12:2-3:
Tear down their altars, smash their sacred pillars, destroy by fire their sacred poles and shatter the idols of their gods that you may stamp out the remembrance of them in any such place.

Anyone who researches this will run into the term “cult objects,” a clear sign that our whole culture, academia included, is governed by Christocentrism. Do we talk about a chalice or a priest’s stole as cult objects?

Jesus of Nazareth was not ruled by the patriarchal mindset, but the religion that grew up in his memory was. Christian churches denigrated female bodies and blamed females for all evil. Sexist statements by Church “Fathers” are well-known:
Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman.
(Clement of Alexandria)
You are the devil’s gateway. You first plucked the forbidden fruit . . . It was you who destroyed the image of God, man.
Woman does not possess the image of God in herself …
(Augustine of Hippo)

Today, the female body held sacred by prehistoric cultures suffers a different kind of desecration. Today, the bodies of females are playthings of men. Few things annoy me more than that public baring of breasts to feed babies is forbidden, while public display of breasts to titillate men is encouraged.

The most impressive part of “Did God have a wife?” was its analysis of Dt 33: 3. The words in question are totally hidden in my NAB translation, but not in my RSV translation. Moses is blessing the Israelites before his death and says he saw “the Lord” and "at his right, a host of his own."

Dr. Stavrakopoulou shows us the Hebrew letters usually translated “his host,” which makes no sense, and explains that it is reasonable to suspect they should be translated "his Asherah." Another reference to "Yahweh and his Asherah" was found on a shard of pottery excavated in another archaeological dig. This my research had uncovered before. In other words, we know that ancient people revered Yahweh and Asherah as husband and wife.

Knowing the history of patriarchal distortions in scripture makes “the Lord” language hateful to me. Its oppressive stamp increased when in 2005 the Vatican overthrew the translation by experts in liturgy who had labored long to produce language beautiful and meaningful. Instead, the Vatican imposed clunky, domineering Lord-talk. It forbids inclusive God-talk, for instance, praying to “Our Mother.”

For this reason, listening to Mass language is always a trial. I can stand it because the atmosphere in Sacred Heart Chapel, the lofty dome and pillars, the music, the reverence and spiritual depth of the religious community, uplift me. When I sit in that place, good thoughts come.

The way we imagine what’s called God makes a huge difference in human relationships. I hope information like that given here will gradually sink into the minds of more people. Right now, I resolve to do more educating on this topic, but I keep being distracted by political events.

One person replied,"Oh, pul-leeeze." I'm sure he knows this but I thought I'd better add it: If it's ridiculous to think of God having a wife, isn't it just as ridiculous to pray to an exclusively male God? This is the point.

April 3, 2017

Two comments by email concern me. Apparently, I didn’t make myself clear to every reader in my last post. I assumed all my readers would know that it's ridiculous to think of God having a gender. The spiritual principal we call "God" CREATED gender. It could not possible BE one of the genders. I shouldn’t have, but did, take for granted that readers would connect the dots I didn’t spell out.           

The ancient Hebrews, whose writings were edited and turned into the Bible, had the same problem we have— consistently, always, exclusively, hearing God referred to as a lord. They never heard references to Her as the life-giver, the Source of all that is. As a consequence of Yahweh being imagined exclusively male, “He” was given a wife in Hebrew imagination. This unintended consequence indicates the pathology of male-only God-talk.

We have to distinguish between what’s called “God” and God-images. A male-only God-image diminished human understanding of Divinity for the ancients and continues doing it today. Further, it deformed human relationships then and does so now by utterly devaluing the feminine.

The Lord of the Hebrew Bible, what Christians call “the Old Testament,” not only condones rape but orders it when he commands genocide, euphemistically called a “ban” or “dooming” in our Bibles. Often the Lord explicitly orders the Hebrews to save the virgins of the conquered people for use by themselves. Examples of the ban are found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Judges, and Joshua.

As for today, can anyone doubt the connection between the Western Lord God and gender abuse? There are more slaves today than at any time in human history. Besides big profits made from human trafficking and illegal brothels (victimizing boys, too), untold numbers of women toil at backbreaking labor to feed their children while the men who impregnated them give orders, make the decisions, and relax.
This is observed regularly by global aid organizations such as Heifer International and micro-lending NGOs. The reach of predatory patriarchy abetted by sexist God-talk encompasses the entire globe.

The contact buttons at this site and http://www.godisnot3guys.com had not been working well, but that’s been fixed now. So click on one of the contact buttons to reach me if you don’t know my email address and don’t want to comment online.

My friend Marilyn in Phoenix, the same one who nagged me into blogging again, extracted from me a promise to announce that my directors at St. Cloud State U. acknowledged my retirement from supervising student teachers. There was a cake—that sealed it for me. This part time adjunct position started in January of 2000. I think I’m better at it now as I’m finishing. Isn’t that the way of things? We’ve mastered something and then it’s time to move on.