Friday 31 August 2018

Three more questions about Mother Mary - and another poem

Question: Do you think that the traditional images of Mother Mary do her justice?

Traditional images of Mother Mary present her as pure, virginal, chaste, submissive, subordinate, obedient, and in the background.


From what we can derive from the gospel accounts, in fact Mary must have possessed considerable physical stamina and strength of character:
  • she accepted the Divine commission to be God's partner in the Incarnation of the Son, risking social ostracism and the loss of her fiancé Joseph;
  • she (perhaps) gave voice to her joy in the egalitarian Magnificat;
  • she undertook a journey during the last trimester of her pregnancy; she and her family fled to avoid Herod's slaughter of baby boys;
  • she lived with her family as refugees in Egypt before moving back to the Galilee;
  • she had several other children (at least four other boys and at least two girls, possibly more);
  • she prompted Jesus to begin his ministry (at the wedding in Cana);
  • she was a matriarch, present during at least some parts of that ministry;
  • she saw Jesus die and be taken to the tomb;
  • she was so loved by her firstborn son that his last thought was to ensure her well-being.

This is not a meek, vulnerable woman, although of course like all of us she no doubt had her vulnerabilities. This is a resilient woman, a woman who confidently talks to angels, participates in God, raises a man like Jesus, a man of courage and faith and vision and compassion and a sense both of true justice and of mercy. She is a great role model for us all.


Question: How are the accounts of the Annunciation in the gospel of Luke and in the Qur'an similar, and how are they different? Does Mary's response to Gabriel in Luke's account differ in any significant way from her response in Sura Maryam? Do you find anything meaningful about one rather than the other account?

In Luke's account of the Annunciation, God sends Gabriel to Mary (a 'virgin' espoused to Joseph) in Nazareth. Gabriel hails Mary as God's favoured one, and affirms that 'the Lord is with' her. Mary is puzzled at this greeting - but not that an angel should greet her at all! Gabriel tells her not to be afraid, because she has 'found favour with God' and will conceive and bear a son, Jesus. Mary questions this, as she is 'a virgin'. Gabriel tells her that the Holy Spirit will come upon her, and the power of 'The Most High' will overshadow her, so her child will be holy, and called the Son of God. The angel goes on to tell Mary of Elizabeth's conception 'in her old age' - a sign that 'nothing will be impossible with God'. Mary then says 'Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it me with me according to your word'.



In the Surah Maryam, Mary retires from her family into 'an eastern place' and takes a veil to screen herself. God's spirit in the semblance of a 'well-made man' comes to her as a 'messenger' to 'bestow on her a pure boy'. Mary again protests that no man has touched her and she is not a 'harlot'. The messenger says it is easy, and a 'decided matter'. And Mary conceives.



The two accounts have some similarity, in so far as Mary is approached by a messenger/angel from God/the Lord; and in both accounts Mary conceives and bears the child who will be Jesus. However, in Luke's account, Mary, while initially questioning how she could be pregnant when she is a virgin, subsequently tells the angel 'Let it be with me according to your word'; that is, she concurs in God's plan. In the Qur'ān, despite her similar protestation of being a virgin, she is not given a choice: it is a 'decided matter'.

This significant difference perhaps indicates a major difference between the faiths of Christianity and Islam, namely that in Christianity men and women, although children of God, are seen as partners with God in many things, while the focus in Islam is on submission to the will of Allah/God.


Question: In your opinion, does the Qur'an portray Mary as a goddess? Does her presence in their holy book ingratiate her to modern Muslims? Why do modern Muslims, more than any other people on earth, seem to oppress and mistreat their women?

The Qur'ān definitely does not portray Mary as a goddess: any gods or goddesses other than Allah are anathema within Islam. She is referred to (Surah 19.28) as Aaron's sister (which may be an honorary epithet, or a simple confusion of Mary's!) and (19.59) as amongst those 'to whom God has been gracious'.

Since Muslims regard Isa (Jesus/Yeshua) as a prophet, then Maryam is revered as his Mother, chosen by Allah for that role, and she therefore is featured more than any other woman in the Qur'ān. This includes Hagar, mother of Ishmael, from whom the Muslim bloodline is believed to derive, and whom one might have expected to be a more significant figure than Mary.

It may be that Mary is given this attention in the Qur'ān as one of the links between the Islamic faith and those of Judaism and Christianity, all of which share the same father/patriarch, Abraham. It may also have been a way of dealing with the Christian concept of Isa's divinity, which Islam denies. Mary/Maryam is depicted as pure and devout, submissive to the will of Allah and to the laws of her religion. She may therefore have been intended to act as a role model for Muslim women: unquestioningly submissive, faithful, and chaste.

In Surah 3, the Family/House of Imran, Mary is portrayed as Imran's daughter, given into the care of Zachariah in the Temple (chosen by lot!), where she is reminded to be obedient, to live in awe, and prostrate (experiencing her 'inexistence' in the sight of Allah's existence) as Allah's chosen one who has been purified, cleansed from the 'filth of duality', and bearing Isa according to Allah's indisputable will.

Surah An-Nisah (156-159) comments on the disbelief of the Jews in accusing Maryam of committing 'illegal sexual intercourse' and their claim to have killed Isa, son of Maryam and 'the Messenger of Allah'.

Such reverence for Mary hinges on the belief in her purity and her submission to Allah's will, rather than for any other qualities, either womanly or 'goddessly'. Islam does teach that men and women are equal in the sight of Allah, are individually accountable for their actions, and will be judged equally. And women do, theoretically at least, have the right to choose who they marry, to study, to own property, to conduct business, and to take part in politics.



But although they are 'equal', men and women are not regarded as the same: men and women are believed to have different purposes, and therefore have difference physicalities and characteristics. Men, for example, are regarded as being the ones who should provide financially for his family, while the woman should look after the home and the family members. This is partly what may have led to the oppression of some Muslim women, and sadly Muslim women are still the victims of vile cultural practices such as genital mutilation, forced marriage, the punishment of rape victims, the denial of education, and being confined to the home.

I believe that this reveals a wide-spread ignorance - both the lack of knowledge, and the literal ignoring of such knowledge - of the true precepts of Islam, which teaches that women be treated with respect, honour, and justice, and within which any kind of oppression is condemned. The Prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying 'Paradise lies at the feet of your Mother' (Hadith Sunan An-Nasai).

It is also very important to remember that the oppression of women is not only confined to Islam but is still a world-wide and cross-cultural phenomenon wherever men are weak.



In Your Image

Mary, Maiden, Mother, Matriarch;
once alone with the angel,
forever after surrounded by your family:

cousin Elizabeth, sharing the joy of pregnancy,
Joseph, loyal and loving husband, taking responsibility,
Jesus, precious first-born, source of wonder and of sorrow,
James and Joses, Simon and Judas, sons to be proud of,
daughter-in-law, Magdala, to inherit your crown,
beloved friend of Jesus, to take you as his mother,
un-named, un-known daughters to teach and love and to succeed you.

Take us as your daughters, we women of this time, this place:
teach us your strength, your wisdom,
that we may raise our children within your family,
to speak with angels and cast out demons,
to be the daughters and the sons of God.



Asherah and Mary

Question: Is there anything that links Mother Mary and the goddess Asherah?

Asherah, also known as Ashtoreth, Astarte, and Ishtar, was one of the three great Goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon, worshipped in ancient Syria and Phoenicia, as well as Canaan. She was often represented by a limb-less tree trunk in the ground, which might be carved into a symbolic representation of the goddess. Places associated with the worship of Asherah thus became known as groves. She was also worshipped on high places.



Asherah was the Moon Goddess, and her consort was Ba'al, the Sun God, also known as El. 



Asherah was also worshipped as the goddess of love and war, but her primary role was that of Mother Goddess. Ugaritic texts refer to her as the 'Creatress' & Mother, while her consort is the Creator & Father. Their children formed the pantheon of gods - between seventy and ninety of them! They are referred to as Asherah's 'pride of lions' as she is associated with lions (power), as well as with serpents (healing/immortality) and sacred trees (fertility). (The Hebrew word for the terebinth tree, ela, is etymologically identical to that for goddess, elat.) The association with trees also links Asherah with Eve in the Genesis story, who was the Mother of all living (Gen.3.20), and indeed the Israelites worshipped Asherah for most of their history, despite it being regarded by some, such as Josiah, as idolatry.

Nonetheless, Asherah was certainly worshipped in the Jerusalem Temple. This indicates that her cult was not purely a domestic/female one, although it has been suggested that it was particularly favoured by 'the mother of the King of Israel' - although without identifying the king! This is linked to the typical description of the father of the King as YHWH, indicating a correspondence between the queen mother, wife of the king's father on earth, and Asherah, wife of YHWH, the king's father in heaven. And indeed, there is archaeological evidence which strongly suggests that YHWH and Asherah were worshipped as a pair - raising questions as to the 'purity' of the monotheistic confessions of the Israelite faith. As regards that, I would like to think that they were capable of understanding that YHWH has many aspects, male and female, and that as humans who do not have the capacity to grasp them all, we need representations to help us realise the nature of the Divine.

Just as Asherah was the Mother (and El/Ba'al the Father, although Ba'al is sometimes regarded as her son), so Mary is revered as Mother, the Mother of God (Jesus, God Incarnate), although while Asherah is the 'bride' or 'consort' of the Father, Mary is not God's bride: she is a partner in the co-creation of the Son. Asherah, whose consort is the god of water, became known as She-who-treads-on-the-sea, while Mary is also known as Star of the Sea. In fact, it is said that this was a scribal error: Jerome was translating Eusebius' 'Dictionary of Proper Names' and translated the Hebrew name Miryam ('drop of the sea') into the Latin Stilla Maris, which later became Stella Maris, Star of the Sea, due to dialect differences.



There is also a leonine link between Asherah and Mary: Jesus has been hailed by some as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, so Mary, his Mother, like Asherah, is the Lioness. And, of course, Mary is seen by some as the New Eve.


Invocation to Asherah
Hail Holy Queen, Qadashu,
'Athirat, Our Lady of the Sea,
Mother of all, Giver of the Milk of Life,
Lioness, Labi'atu of our Pride:
we call you now,
and ask your blessings upon us.
Hear our prayer,
guard us, guide us, keep us, feed us.
May our sorrow cover our sins,
may our shortcomings be set aside,
and may you take us to your heart,
Great Goddess, 'Elat,
Co-Creator of all, Qaniyatu 'Ilima,
Star of Heaven, Ima, Shekinah,
Asherah.



A little bit of research about the goddess Nikkal-wa-lb

Nikkal is a Goddess of Ugarit/Canaan, and Phoenicia. Her name is said to derive from the Akkadian/West Semitic words 'Ilat and 'Inbi and means 'Goddess of Fruit' or 'Great Lady and Bright'. She is also known as 'Ib, Ugaritic for 'the Blossom' or 'the Fruitful One'. In Sumeria she was worshipped as Nin-gal (Lady of the Temple).

Ningal/Nikkal is the wife of Nanna/Sin/Yarikh (the moon/moon god) who causes dew to fall each night to water Nikkal's trees so that they will thrive - important for the goddess of orchards, specifically olive, fig, apple, pistachio, walnut and almond trees!

She is also the goddess of the fruitful earth, and of human fertility. Her own fertility in the heiros gamos (Sacred Marriage) assures earthly abundance. Nikkal was believed especially to manifest herself during the new moon after harvest, and this was the time of her major celebration, although some sources claim her current feast day is 13th March. She shares her main characteristics with many other goddesses, particularly in her association with the heiros gamos and the importance of the rite for earthly and human fertility. And of course, the link between the Divine Feminine and the Moon is a strong and nice one.

Nikkal's father was the King of Summer, Khirkhibi, also known as Hiribi or Harhab, who had not wanted his daughter to marry Yarikh and suggested that instead Yarikh should marry one of the daughters of Ba'al and Astarte, either Pidraya (the Goddess of Lightning) or Yabarodmay. However, he was persuaded by a generous bride-price of a thousand pieces of silver, ten thousand pieces of gold, and necklaces of lapis-lazuli! There is in some texts a suggestion that Nikkal was the daughter of Dagon of Tuttul, the Philistine god of grain and/or fish, but in briefly researching him I have not found any reference to a daughter.

Nikkal is associated with the Kathirat/Kothirot (the Skilful Ones) - goddesses who act as divine midwives - and was the mother of Inanna/Ishtar (the Queen of Heaven), Ereshkigal (Queen both of the Great Earth and of the Underworld), and Shamash (also known as Shapash or Utu, the Sun God).

The most ancient surviving annotated piece of music, albeit incomplete, is a hymn inscribed in Ugaritic cuneiform syllabic writing on clay tablets excavated from the Royal Palace in Ugarit (present day Ras Shamra, in northern Syria) and first published in 1955. It is in the Hurrian dialect, dates from approximately 1400 B.C.E. and is dedicated to Nikkal (Nikkalu in Ugaritic). It is also known as the ''Hurrian Cult Hymn' or a 'Zaluzi to the Gods', or, simply, 'h.6'. The composer/author is unknown. The tablet also contains instructions for a singer accompanied by a nine-stringed sammûm (harp or lyre).




The text of the Hymn to Nikkal has been difficult to translate, due to a lack of knowledge of the local Ugarit dialect (Hurrian) and the condition of the tablets, from which some fragments are missing; but it is believed clearly to be a religious song concerning offerings to the Goddess Nikkal. The best published translation so far is this:

I will bring ... in the form of lead at the right foot of the divine throne.
I will purify ... and change the sinfulness.
Once sins are no longer covered and need no longer be changed,
I feel well having accomplished the sacrifice.
Once I have endeared the Goddess she will love me in her heart.
The offering I bring may wholly cover my sin;
bringing sesame oil may work on my behalf.
In awe may I ...
The sterile may they make fertile, grain may they bring forth.
She, the wife, will bear to the father.
May she who has not yet borne children bear them.

There is another hymn or song associated with Nikkal, this time telling the story of her wedding to Yarikh. It is thought that this was recited or sung at weddings in Ugarit, similar to the use of the Song of Songs, part of which we used at our own wedding. The song invokes the power of the myth for the wedding and the marriage, and also contains the prophecy of the birth of a son, which is reminiscent the prophecies of Isaiah (7.4: A virgin shall conceive...) which it most likely pre-dates. It is interesting that Nikkal is here described as the daughter of the Katharat - a plurality of motherhood!

Let me sing of Nikkal-an-Ib, the daughter of the King of Summer:
At the setting of the sun, Yarikh became inflamed,
he embraced her, who was born of the Katharat.
Hear, goddesses, Katharat, O daughters of Ellil, the Bright Ones:
Lo, the sacred bride will bear a son.
Yarikh, the luminary of the heavens, sent a message
to Harhab, the King of Summer: give me Nikkal!
The Katharat say: Give Nikkal! Yarikh would pay the bride-price of 'Ib;
let her enter his household.
Yarikh shall give her dowry to her father, a thousand of silver,
and ten thousand of gold!
Yarikh shall send gems of lapis lazuli;
he shall turn her steppe-lands into vineyards,
the steppe-land of her love into orchards!
But Harhab, King of Summer, replied:
O most gracious of the gods, become son-in-law to Ba'al; wed Pidray his daughter.
I shall introduce you to her father Ba'al; Athtar will intercede;
he will betroth you to Yabradmay, his father's daughter the lion will arouse!
But Yarikh, the luminary of the heavens, replied:
With Nikkal will be my wedding!
Her father set the beams of the scales, her mother set the trays of the scales;
her brothers arranged the ingots, her sisters the stones of the scales.
Nikkal it is of whom I sing.
Bright is Yarikh; may Yarikh shine on you!
I sing of the goddesses, the Katharat,
daughters of Ellil, lord of Gamlu, the Bright Ones,
who go down to the nut groves and among the olive groves.
To the Compassionate, God of Mercy,
Lo, in my mouth is their number, on my lips is the sum of them,
O thou, established as her dot and dowry;
from her, Wise Women, cut off from her the fruit with care, O Katharat.

References:

All the same on the inside?

Question: Is there evidence that people worldwide are starting to understand that we are all the same on the inside? Do you see signs of more desire for inner, secret teachings?

I would love to see evidence that people world-wide are starting to understand that we are 'all the same on the inside', not least that the make up of our human nature includes a spiritual dimension as well as the physical, mental/intellectual, and emotional.

One example of an increasing sense of commonality is that, within traditional/exoteric Christianity, there have been positive moves toward ecumenism ever since the 1910 World Missionary Conference. The World Council of Churches first met in 1948. Within Anglicanism, there is now full communion with many other denominations, and there is continuing dialogue between the Episcopal Church, the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, the Presbyterian, and the United Methodist churches. The current Pope, Francis, has had joint discussions with both the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and with Patriarch Kirill. On more local levels, a number of united or uniting churches have formed, including my own denomination, the United Reformed Church. In other situations church buildings are shared: the English-speaking congregation that meets here in Brittany worships in the Chapel of a Roman Catholic lycée.

Inter-faith movements have also increased. Evidence for this includes its early beginnings with the International Association for Religious Freedom (1900) and the 1914 Fellowship of Reconciliation, through the World Congress of Faiths (1936), the International Humanist and Ethical Union (1952), Vatican II (1965), Minhaj-ul-Quran (1981, a Pakistan based organisation), the InterFaith Alliance (1994), the United Religions Initiative (2000), the Coexist Foundation (2006), Project Interfaith (2010), and the Interfaith Association for Service to Humanity and Nature, founded in February last year (2017).

In addition to these, there has been a documented rise in the numbers of people who define themselves as 'spiritual but not religious' (SBNR) – it is reported, for example, that in the U.S.A. 37% of people classify themselves as SBNR, 68% say they believe in God, and 58% say they feel a deep connection to the Earth. Various categories have been distinguished by Linda Mercadante (author of 'Belief without Borders') within SBNR: dissenters (who have fallen out with organised religion), casuals (who may seek 'therapeutic' spiritual help when they feel the need), explorers (who desire journey and change, but fail to commit or settle to a spiritual home), seekers (who probably have some earlier spiritual affiliation but are looking for a new religious identity), and immigrants (who have found themselves involved in a new realm and are trying to adjust).

All of this is perhaps fed by increasing cross-cultural knowledge (westerners particularly being increasingly interested in Eastern and indigenous philosophies), by the search for roots (evident, for example, in the rise of interest in pre-Christian, nature-oriented beliefs) and the influence of feminism and ecology. Some individuals are also said (for example by the late musicologist David Carr) to have sought to develop 'religiously untethered' senses of spirituality through the power of music, while the Revd. June Boyce Tillman (Professor of Applied Music, University of Winchester – where I began my doctoral studies) suggests that music moves us into 'a self-transcending experience'.

But despite all this, which may seem positive and hopeful, the world is still more defined by its divisions than its unities, by its violence than its peace, by its fear than its love – and division, violence and fear are not signs of spirituality. In terms of exoteric religion, there appears to be a rise not in true charity and open-ness, but in fundamentalism and extremism, which liberalism cannot counter-balance. And while I am at the stage of being open to esoteric teachings, I cannot speak for anyone else, and know of no signs of a desire in others for 'inner, secret teachings'.



The fallacy of the Fall

Question: Do you believe, along with the Gnostics, that Sophia is fallen and in need of redemption? Why or why not?

I am horrified by the Gnostic myth that Sophia is "fallen" and in need of redemption. Not because to make mistakes and need help is outwith my understanding – quite the opposite! - but because it is yet another example of a woman, albeit one who represents the Wisdom of God, being blamed for our human situation of partial separation from the Divine Being. I really don't like the blame culture which both this, and the story interpreted as 'The Fall', are a part. Both Eve and Sophia have suffered from ultimate misogyny.

It seems to me that the interpretation of the story of 'the Fall' in Genesis make more sense, as has been suggested by some scholars such as Richard Smoley, when understood in terms of a choice Adam and Eve made – the choice to seek out knowledge and to learn to discern good and evil. They got what they wanted, although the life it entailed/entails is not an easy one: it's not a rose garden here!

Similarly, the role of Sophia was a positive one: rather than having fallen from grace, my view would be that Sophia chose to 'fall' into matter and become manifest, as Caitlin Matthews says (in her fascinating book 'Sophia: Goddess of Wisdom' which I have just begun reading) 'in every atom, permeating all things like the sparks that run through charcoal.' This, of course, also means that Sophia also resides in all of us, that she is the 'divine spark' which dwells within us. Sophia's choice and its consequences make Sophia knowable and accessible, not least to those outwith the theological framework of belief in Jesus as the Incarnation of God.

(This is probably a complete irrelevance, but it occurs to me that in the book & film 'Sophie's Choice', the choice the eponymous Sophie made was to sacrifice her daughter Eva ('life') for the sake of her son Jan (derived from the name Johanan which means 'YHWH is gracious')

By her motherly love Sophia, he Wisdom of God, is also an inspiration both toward similar compassion to our selves and to others, and of the impulse to return to our Creator, the ultimate Divine Being, not through rejecting the material world, but through understanding and knowledge of the God who is within all and is all.

In terms of the so-called 'problem of evil' (and of suffering) which the stories of the 'falls' of Eve and Sophia claim to address: it seems to me to be unreasonable to blame anything outside of our selves for the existence of these. Fear, the unreasonable fear of difference, separates us from one another, such that we fail to see that the harm we inflict on one another is actually harming us all, including our selves. It is humans whose evil creates suffering, not God, and until we begin to open ourselves to one another, accept our commonality, and live in fellowship, then evil and suffering will persist. 

As Robert Burns wrote:

Many and sharp the num'rous ills inwoven with our frame.
More pointed still we make ourselves, regret, remorse, and shame.
And man, whose heav'n-erected face the smiles of love adorn, -
Man's inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn
(Man was Made to Mourn. 1784)

I believe that God mourns with and for us, and wants our inhumanity to end, so we become fully human as we are created to be, with all the capacities that that includes.

God and Evolution

Question: Do you believe it's possible to believe in a creator god and the mechanism of evolution at the same time?

I absolutely do believe that it is possible to believe in a Creator God and the mechanism of evolution at the same time – and I believe in both.

I believe that that which I call God is greater than I can imagine or perceive during this earthly life, but that for the Divine all things are possible. I therefore believe that it would have been possible for the universe to have been created in the way that either of the accounts in the book of Genesis describe – but I don't believe that it was.

I believe that the Genesis accounts are myths, probably firstly passed down orally, and then documented, inevitably in the style and language of their day. This in no way diminishes the truths that lie behind and within the myths: that God is our Creator; that we have relationships not only with each other but also with God and with the created universe, including particularly our planet Earth, towards which we have especial responsibilities and a duty of care; and that our current experience of life in the physical realm is not the totality of existence, nor the fullness of life for which human beings are all created and to which we are all called. Because of this we may seem to fit less well into earthly life than others do, for example, plant and animal life.

Evolution is an undeniable continuing process – all things are evolving all the time – and I believe that it both was and continues to be God who is the source and force which empowers this. I think this is known as 'theistic evolution'.

The universe, and every part of it, is awesome: look at the night sky, look at a new-born of any species, look at the intricacies of a flower; use a telescope or a microscope and the awe increases exponentially. And having just written that last sentence, I am awed by the sight of an amazing double rainbow totally filling the eastern sky across the lane from our garden, the sign of God's continuing and everlasting covenant with all creation.