Ever since the news broke about the "Re-Imagining" Conference, those wishing to defend the event have sought to calm the subsequent clamor by calling for reasoned dialogue. Numerous annual conferences have passed resolutions requesting various avenues of conversation. Some bishops and cabinet members have said that United Methodism can weather the storms caused by "Re-Imagining" but may not be able to undo the damage done from within by those who make persistent protests.
They tell us that we are, after all, involved in a "family" quarrel like that between Peter and Paul, or between Calvin and Luther. Many of us, however, believe that we are engaged instead in a debate similar to that between Paul and the Judaizers, between Peter and Simon the magician, between Athanasius and the Arians, and between our Lord and the Sadduccees.
Nevertheless, I believe we should accept their calls for dialogue. But let us also plead with them to help facilitate such communication. Far too much effort has been spent on damage control as opposed to true dialogue. Time and again, we are assured that those in attendance at "Re-Imagining" did not agree fully with all that was said or done at the event. Their word ought to be accepted. Unfortunately, we are never made privy to exactly what they disagreed with and disapproved of at the conference. A good example of this is the response from the Women's Division. Rather than setting the record straight as to the acceptability of the theology and activities of "Re-Imagining," the Women's Division leadership chose to deflect the dialogue to irrelevant issues, such as the propriety of being involved in ecumenical meetings, the ability of women to take part in theological reflection, and the strength of our God and our faith to stand up to challenges and questions.
If dialogue is going to take place, it is imperative for those who were involved in "Re-Imagining," or those who wish to defend it, to make their views clear. Perhaps part of the problem rests in the fact that we who oppose what was promoted at the conference have not done an adequate job of asking questions.
We should begin by asking about the legitimacy of even trying to re-imagine a God who could not be known unless he had revealed himself to us. To be sure, we can learn much about God from his creation, but we cannot get to know God personally through the study of nature or ourselves. Human imagination can produce idols (Isaiah 44:9-20; Romans 1:20-23). We did not imagine God, God made a self-disclosure. We should ask: Do you agree with the premise of the conference that God was of human imagination and therefore can be re-imagined at will? Let the dialogue begin there.
We should also ask if it is proper to re-name a God who already has a name. This brings to mind one of the most poignant themes of the TV mini-series, "Roots." You might recall that the slave, Toby, was in reality Kunta Kinta, the Mandigo warrior. To be renamed was considered quite properly to be insulting. So it is with God. We might refer to God by way of his attributes, but we must never forget that he is Yahweh, I Am Who I Am, and that the only other personal name to be associated with him is Jesus (John 10:30). Let us ask the question: Do you agree with the service of re-naming God which took place during "Re-Imagining"?
Another set of questions surrounds "Sophia." Perhaps the United Methodist participants did not agree with some or all of what Sophia has become for certain theologians. According to Susan Cady and others, Sophia (a transliteration of the Greek word translated "wisdom") is a real biblical person (Sophia: The Future of Feminist Spirituality, Harper and Row, 1986, p. 10. See also, Marcus Borg's Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, Harper San Francisco, 1994). Indeed, many consider her another hypostasis (a "person" in Trinitarian language) of God, who is speaking autonomously as the other co-creator with Yahweh:
Sophia is hidden with Yahweh in search of her; only after he finds her does creation begin. There is a hint here [in Baruch 3 and other apocryphal materials] that Sophia is not derivative or secondary to Yahweh, but rather existed in her own right before creation-indeed, that Yahweh needed her to begin the creative process (Sophia, 14).
Sophia theologians believe that this same interpretation can be brought to bear on Proverbs 8 and 9. "An alternate reading of Proverbs 8:22 ('Yahweh created me') is 'Yahweh acquired me,' which also hints at her status as an autonomous divine figure" (Sophia, 14).
This view was most certainly prevalent at "Re-Imagining." Sophia was addressed as an autonomous hypostasis—as a real person. The conference was convened in her name. She was invoked at places usually reserved for Yahweh, Father, Jesus, or Holy Spirit. She was addressed as "Our maker Sophia," "Our mother Sophia," "Our guide Sophia," and "Sophia, Creator God." Women were also described as created in her image ("Re-Imagining" booklet, 32). Here we may ask: Do you agree that Sophia is another hypostasis of God who should be worshiped along with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? We should express to them that an honest answer will either facilitate true dialogue or prove our fears unwarranted.
We could continue by asking whether Jesus is to be identified with Sophia. Various theologians claim that her characteristics and co-creative role were usurped by the New Testament writers and handed over to Jesus. When Paul wrote, "But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God" (I Corinthians 2:7), he was, according to Cady, transferring one of Sophia's traits directly to Jesus (Sophia, 42). Like Paul, according to Sophia theologians, John identified Jesus with Sophia, the divine person. In other words, Jesus not only possessed divine wisdom, he was or is Sophia. We should press for an answer as to whether United Methodist leadership finds this acceptable.
We need to go one step further. According to Cady and other Sophialogians, since Sophia's characteristics and role could be handed over to Jesus, his work can, in turn, become Sophia's.
…we propose that Sophia assume the story of Jesus' passion and death…we saw that the sayings of Sophia and those of Jesus have become one in many of the Christian Scriptures. And we noticed that Jesus assumes Sophia's role as creator in the Pauline and Johannine descriptions of him. In the same spirit, in response to the needs of the contemporary community, Jesus' suffering and death can become Sophia's own…. In a certain sense we are allowing ourselves to vandalize the well-loved story of Jesus' betrayal, trial, crucifixion, and burial [note the lack of any reference to his resurrection] (Sophia, 88, 89, 90).
Here, again, the questions are simple: With what do you agree or disagree? An attendant question is this: Is Jesus the Savior of all humankind, or must a feminine act be added to meet the perceived needs of certain women? We might confront Sophialogy with what Anne Primavesi said in her presentation at "Re-Imagining":
[The revelation of God] has been narrowed down, down, down, down, until it becomes solely the revelation of Jesus Christ…. So that we have as a part of revelation the fact that a man, Jesus, is the full revelation of God. This revelation, in fact, is confined by time, place, species, race, gender, human male presence and language.
Is Jesus a limited revelation of God? An answer is needed.
Other issues arose from "Re-Imagining" for which space does not allow further development—only their mention. We should be asking specifically whether our denominational and pastoral leadership rejects the need for a theory of atonement. We should ask whether Native American animism is an appropriate resource for Christian worship. We should be asking whether reliance on non-canonical materials is acceptable.
We need to put every effort forward to facilitate true dialogue. We need also to pray that those who defend "Re-Imagining" will uphold their end of the discussion. Above all else, however, we must be careful to know when to end dialogue and come to some conclusions.
Kevin R. Baster is the pastor of the United Methodist Parish of Belgrade and Hawick in central Minnesota. His wife, Jana, also pastors two congregations. They are the parents of three children: Renee, Kye, and Bethany. He holds a Ph.D. in Theological and Religious Studies from Northwestern University.
This article was published in Good News (September/October 1994).