We have read "A Time of Hope-A Time of Threat," and we recognize the support for this document within the official structures of United Methodism. There are signatures from seminary professors, clergywomen, missionaries, and representatives of virtually every board and agency within the denomination. But we are especially disturbed to see he statement supported by several United Methodist bishops.
At the press conference announcing the statement, Bishop Susan Morrison of the Philadelphia Area d: "We are 'in a time of theological crisis." We agree. We are disappointed with the current digression of theological discussion within United Methodism and join with her in calling for an "arena for discourse."
We are troubled, however, to see such strident language utilized in "A Time of Hope—A Time of Threat." It claims that those who were critical of substance of the liturgy and theology presented at the "Re-Imagining" conference are "frightened by fresh theological insights and by challenges to narrow orthodoxy" and are 'attempting to discredit and malign women." The concerns of “Re-Imagining" critics have been uncharitably degraded to "irrational and distorted attacks" which "increase an environment of violence against women." They were called "homophobic," and accused of engaging in "verbal violence against lesbians" and denigrating the "rich contributions that homosexual persons have made to the church through the centuries." They were also accused of creating a climate of "witch-hunting, name-calling, and fear" in order to destroy the "church's capacity to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ." Unfortunately, this is not the kind of language that promotes an "arena for discourse."
According to media reports, several of the press conference participants characterized the criticism of "Re-Imagining" theology and liturgy as an attack on women in ministry and female leadership within the church. These charges are false and distract the church from addressing the legitimate and very specific theological issues of concern.
"Violence against women." "Homophobia." "Witch-hunting." These hyperbolic charges create an unnavigable course for any dialogue of theological substance. It appears that if anyone were to disagree with the signers of "A Time of Hope-A Time of Threat" they would stand accused increasing an "environment of violence against women."
Additionally, the Rev. Jeanne Audrey Powers, a United Methodist executive
and
member of the "Re-Imagining" steering committee, claimed: "It
is time to speak out about what women believe." Such injudicious statements
come as an especially interesting revelation to women who do not subscribe
to offering milk and honey in the name of "Sophia" or any other
tenets of feminist ideology.
The statement's call for theological diversity rings hollow when it resorts to a language of victimization. This is most certainly not a war between the sexes, as the statement implies. The men and women associated with Good News and the Renew Women's Network (ECUMW) have made their theological concerns very clear and specific-and they certainly do not include the fear of female empowerment or ministry. We simply do not believe that United Methodists should be led in feminist theological experiments-many of which deny the very tenets of our Christian faith.
We were saddened to see the ad hoc group continue to trample on the foundational Christian doctrine, of the atonement. According to media reports, the Rev. Beryl Ingram-Ward, 'one of the nine original authors of the statement, offered a startling defense of Dr. Delores Williams' controversial statement: "I don't think we need an atonement at all I don't think we need folks hanging on crosses and blood dripping and weird stuff."
In its coverage of the press conference, the Religious News Service reported: "In light of the violence and abuse directed toward based on their gender, Ingram-Ward questioned serving a 'Father-God' who willfully kills his own child-a reference to Jesus' crucifixion. 'How can we continue to believe a loving Parent would do this when human parents who do this are sent to prison?"' This audacious dismissal of a foundational Christian doctrine is irresponsible and reckless. Believers have always understood the atonement to be at the heart of Christian teaching.
As to the matter of "Sophia," we agreed with many of the reported comments of Dr. Catherine Keller, an associate professor of theology at Drew University. With Dr. Keller, we too believe that those "looking for a goddess are quickly disappointed in Sophia;" and that "Sophia is a metaphor, nothing less and nothing more."
However, we were bewildered at Dr. Keller's claim that the Sophia controversy is the "creation" of the conference critics. "She is their Mediterranean fertility fantasy," Dr. Keller said. We are unable to discern how anyone could read the Sunday morning "Re-Imagining" liturgy and conclude that those who question it are the ones with the Mediterranean fertility fantasy.
It was not the evangelicals who developed a liturgy which exclusively focused upon "the hot blood of our wombs," "the milk of our breasts," "the nectar between our thighs," "our warm body fluids," "our moist mouths," and "the tongue which licks a wound or wets our lips." (Had a mate minister concocted such a liturgy we believe that female worshippers would be negligent if they did not charge him with creating an environment of sexual harassment.)
It was not the evangelicals who developed a liturgy in which participants claimed to "give form to new life," "suckle the children," be "women in your [Sophia's] image," "invite a lover," "birth a child," "remind the world of its pleasures and sensations," "kiss away a tear," "celebrate the sensual life you give us," and "celebrate the fingertips vibrating upon the skin of a love."
It was not the evangelicals who developed a liturgy addressed to "Our maker, Sophia," "Sophia Creator God Our mother Sophia Our sweet Sophia," and "Our guide, Sophia." To put it mildly, these are certainly non-traditional ways to address what "Re-Imagining" defenders describe as a simple metaphor. In light of the substance of this liturgy, we are baffled by the charge that Sophia is the "creation" of the evangelicals.
"A Time of Hope-A Time of Threat" announces: "Today creative theological minds explore a whole range of issues, including the biblical meaning of God's Wisdom, Sophia (like God's Word, Logos)." Unfortunately, participants at "Re-Imagining" did not simply "explore" Sophia theologically. Instead, they were expected to engage compliantly in liturgies and prayers to her. Furthermore, any comparison between "Sophia" and the "Logos" of John’s gospel is without scholarly support. John wrote quite clearly, "The Word [Logos] became flesh and made his dwelling among us." No similar statement can ever be made about Sophia.
The controversy surrounding the "Re-Imagining" Conference has surfaced in most Christian denominations. Joseph D. Small, coordinator for Theology and Worship in the Christian Faith and Life Program Area for the Presbyterian Church (USA), and John P. Burgess, an associate for theology, have studied the "Re-Imagining" Conference's utilization of Sophia. Both Small and Burgess are officials at their denomination's headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky.
Among their findings, they observe: "Wisdom/Sophia, both in frequency and formulation, became an alternative employed in distinction from the triune God. This can be seen clearly in the 'Ritual of the Spirit of Re-Imagining' where a corporate prayer concludes with the words, '...through the power and guidance of the spirit of wisdom whom we name Sophia.' Here, sophia is not merely the Greek word for wisdom, but a name invoked within a formulation as an alternative to the living tradition of the church catholic: '...through Jesus Christ."'
They also make a helpful clarification: "Prayers, litanies, hymns and liturgical actions are confessional acts of the whole gathered community. Liturgy does far more than ask individuals to consider new possibilities; it engages them in communal practices."
Small and Burgess conclude: "Sophia was blessed, thanked, celebrated and praised in language appropriately reserved for expressing the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit."
At the press conference, Dr. Keller claimed: "Many feel their power diminished by women's growing leadership in church and theology. They recognize that female
imagery of the divine-even used along with male imagery-empowers women. So they are desperate to put a stop to it." This is an unfortunate use of amateur psychology that fails to take evangelical concerns seriously or even attempt to address them. Furthermore, it certainly does not explain the concern and distress of United Methodist women who are offended and repelled by radical feminist theology.
Evangelical concerns regarding "Re-Imagining" theology and liturgy have been very specific. To date they have not been addressed substantively by the Women's Division or others who have continued to support the "Re-Imagining" Conference. Here are just a few of the unanswered concerns:
Are we expected to believe it is appropriate to pray to, sing to, and offer a eucharist-like service in the name of Sophia?
· Are we expected to believe in a new theology which suggests that
we no longer need the atoning blood of Jesus?
·Are we expected to believe that we can gain divine energy through
“pranic healing" by talking to trees?
·Are we expected to applaud lesbianism, bisexuality, and transsexualism?
·Are we expected to believe that sex between friends should become
normative?
"A Time of Hope-A Time of Threat" has provided us an opportunity to once again clarify our position. As the "Re-Imagining" controversy continues within the United Methodist Church, it should be made clear that we were not the ones who began this dispute. The responsibility for division in the UM Church over this issue rests solely with those who offered milk and honey to Sophia. As John Wesley made clear in a letter many years ago, the real separatists in the church are "those who ... renounce her fundamental doctrines."
According to press reports, "A Time of Hope-A Time of Threat" may be brought before the 1996 General Conference of the United Methodist Church. We are confident that any referendum on Sophia worship and the re-examination of basic Christian tenets such as sacrifice, atonement, and martyrdom will be firmly rejected by the mainstream grassroots of the United Methodism.
James V. Heidinger II is editor/executive secretary of Good News, Faye Short is director of the Renew Women’s Network, Dottie Chase is a United Methodist laywoman and attended “Re-Imagining” as the Good News press representative, and Steve Beard is the executive editor of Good News magazine.