Thealogy: Encyclopedia II - Thealogy - Three interpretations of thealogy

Thealogy - Three interpretations of thealogy

There are perhaps three distinct interpretations of thealogy, and they are evident in the briefing above.

• Christ, King and Raphael focus thealogy specifically on Goddess spirituality.
• Caron defines a broader field of a female worldview of the sacred.
• Goldenberg's neologism as a political stance that marks the androcentrism of historical theology permeates the other two and raises its own issues.

Thealogy - Thealogy as Goddess spirituality

Taking the Goddess variant first, and it seems the commonest to the point where thealogy is typically assumed to be purely Goddess based, a linguistic derivation from the Greek "thea" (goddess). Goddess systematics inevitably face the question of "god in a skirt" or not, a subtly sexist tag that nonetheless carries a genuine issue. This can be viewed as sexist because "in a skirt" defines a subject norm as altered, trivialised, and definitely derivative, much as some have considered the female to have been historically defined in relation to the male. Thealogy specifically aims to counter what its proponents perceive as the massive dualistic sexism in the field of religion, by asserting a female worldview that is not merely reformist or derivative, so its proponents would see this quip as especially destructive.

Thealogy - Broad interpretation of thealogy Caron

Caron's definition "Reflection on the divine in feminine and feminist terms" holds a caution for feminist theologians and thealogians alike that the female sacred extends beyond the feminist agenda. Often theology or feminist thealogy writes as if the Goddess is a feminist discovery. The "womenspirit" Goddess is a highly selected deity who for thealogians such as Christ has nothing to do with goddess practices such as violent sacrifice, or validating a male conqueror. However, this can be seen to be as inauthentic as the habit of some Christians of disowning the Inquisition as "not done by real Christians" (see the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy).

Nor is it a matter only of past history: many members of a huge international organisation like the Fellowship of Isis would not identify as feminist, nor would a great many Pagans. Outside the goddessing of western NRMs thealogy can recognise and give due respect to the world millions in village and tribal religions who look to goddesses in ways that may or may not be feminist, and Caron's definition allows thealogy to be this widely inclusive.

This broader view accords well with the kind of fluid systematics profiled by Cynthia Eller when she reports her respondent Margaret Keane as saying:

This broader view has most recently been labelled by Michael York as "polymorphic thealogy." He also raises the issue of whether thealogy venerates one Goddess or many, which some thealogicians consider a non-question since it arises from a monotheist worldview that they do not hold.

However Caron's definition falls short of explicitly allowing for male positions in thealogy.

Thealogy - A challenge to androcentrism

The third interpretation of thealogy as an assertion of female sacred worldviews is clearly political. The notes above touch on how this usage aims to counter the deeply established dualistic relegation of female as derivative, making the male the norm: as Mary Daly put it "If God is male, then the male is God."

Thealogy has been criticised as essentialist by queer theorists and others.

To a thealogian it is important to explore the female worldview (not only but notably of the sacred) and not be compelled to take off female spectacles when looking at themes beyond female psychobiology. A speaker may choose to adopt a kind of gender neutral stance insofar as she can, or she may try to empathise with a male worldview, and a male speaker vice versa.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Three interpretations of thealogy", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki