God the Father and Christian women

That orthodox Christian theology is thought to be somehow hostile to women or inadequate for their psychology remains a great mystery to me. It is not just that Christianity, compared to the other great religions, accords a remarkable place to women-after all, the Virgin Mary is the highest form of human saintliness. Women were part and parcel of the Gospel story; they were among those who ministered to and helped Jesus. He treated them with unusual love and respect. It was women-far more than the Apostles-who showed loyalty and support at the time of his Crucifixion, and it was women who first were told of the Resurrection. This in a Jewish society that gave less importance to women's testimony even in court. Women were major contributors to the apostolate of Saint Paul. Holy women surrounded many of the great early saints, such as Saint Jerome. Thousands of the early martyrs were women. Large numbers of the greatest-and widely acknowledged saints were women. When I became a Catholic, it was to me mind-boggling-coming from a secular and Protestant background-to find so many women held up as models of veneration and imitation. As I mentioned earlier, there is simply nothing like this great tradition of female accomplishment and of honor paid to women in any other religion or, for that matter, in any other domain of human endeavor.

So the idea that the idea of God the Father has been an impediment to female religious life seems to me most unlikely in light of the historical evidence to the contrary. Somehow for hundreds of years millions of Catholic women did not notice that it was a problem! Indeed, this historical evidence speaks very much to the interpretation that the Fatherhood of God has been a strong, positive component of Christianity for women (in part, for the psychological reasons given above).

Another relevant issue is that many radical feminists are lesbians, and thus it is important to discuss what can be called "lesbian psychology." I will refer here to the important work of the Christian psychologist Elizabeth Moberly (1983, 1985) who has written extensively on the psychology of lesbians. Moberly's basic point is that lesbians represent that small proportion of women who never developed a strong feminine identity. This identity failed because of a disruption in the early mother-daughter bonding. Their insecure feminine gender identity is associated with a great deal of anger which may erupt unpredictably. Because of their painful, often destructive relationships with their mothers, they are usually very ambivalent about women (same sex ambivalence). For example, they may resent being treated as women by other women. However, they often seek other women who are positive mother figures, or they live out mother roles in their relationships with other women. Lesbian women also tend to be angry at men, especially if they have experienced indifferent or abusive men; they are very vulnerable to any criticism that they perceive as directed at women. For such women, God the Father commonly fails to meet their psychological needs.

But what is the Christian psychological response to this? To begin, you don't throw out what is good psychology for the great majority of normal women, in order to meet the needs of a very small number of lesbian feminists. Nevertheless, you still must try to find ways to support these women's needs: to help them. But how? Besides good psychotherapy, there is in the Orthodox and Catholic tradition an extraordinary mothering function which is sometimes met by the Blessed Virgin Mary, the "Mother of Mercy." In short, spiritual mothering is one way, often overlooked, that can promote the psychological and spiritual healing of women with painfully defective mothering.

Male archetypes, and the concept of father

Some surprising support for the model of male servant leadership comes from recent Jungian theorists describing male psychology. It is not that they are directly aware of their support, but nevertheless they provide it. Nor am I endorsing Jungian psychology. Instead let us assume that it has some basic validity-especially the Jungian notion of an archetype or inborn mental structure which develops in response to various cultural experiences and symbols that express the archetype's structure. Certain contemporary Jungians, such as Robert Bly (1990), and especially Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette (1990), and Patrick Arnold (1992) have proposed four primary archetypes as underlying male psychology. These are referred to as the archetype of the King, the Warrior, the Lover, and the Wiseman/ Magician.

By the King archetype, Moore and Gillette mean a basic primal energy in men, focused on ordering-creating Right Order through wise ruling. The King archetype is also concerned with providing fertility and blessing. The King must have children and he must bless his Kingdom's children. The King symbolizes the life force and balance; he is a mentor.

The Warrior archetype stands for male energy and aggressiveness, clear thinking in the presence of death, plus training to develop aggressiveness in a disciplined way. The Warrior shows loyalty to a transpersonal ideal -his God, or leader, or nation or another cause.

The Magician archetype is the knower and master of technology. He is usually an initiate-that is, part of a secret religious world. He is an archetype of awareness, insight, thoughtfulness and introspective reflection.

The Lover archetype stands for passion and love. The Lover is very aware of the physical world, of sensations, sensuality and feeling. The Lover's energies are close to those of the mystics. Artists and psychics represent common professions of the Lover.

As described, any of these archetypes can be distorted in a macho manner, or in a weak, wimp-like fashion. Moore and Gillette very clearly acknowledge that each of these basic male archetypes can be used for evil. They explicitly note that the King can be a tyrant or a weakling (macho or wimpo, if you will). They also admit that the Warrior can be corrupted into a sadist or masochist; the Magician can be a prideful manipulator or an envious weakling; the Lover can degenerate into an addicted, promiscuous Don Juan; or he can be impotent, depressed and uncommitted.

The problem with the Jungian understanding of male archetypes is that however much these theorists decry the serious, harmful distortions of these male archetypes, they offer no convincing method or model for avoiding the ways in which men have distorted these male tendencies to exploit or harm others-especially women.

What is interesting is that Jesus, who is our model of God the Father, is the perfect integration of these four archetypes within the framework of servant leadership. That Jesus was a King is acknowledged in the liturgical year at the last feast of the Christian year: Christ the King. Jesus is commonly referred to as our Lord. As a Warrior Jesus said that he had come to bring the sword; recall his attack on the money-changers in the Temple, his fierce criticisms of the Pharisees-all Warrior behaviors. Of course the primary battle that Jesus led was a spiritual battle. St. Paul frequently refers to our life as one of spiritual warfare, and so do many of the saints. As for Christ the Lover, much of his message is one of love. He showed kindness and concern for the suffering of others so strong that it is no wonder that one of the great spiritual classics is titled This Tremendous Lover and a famous Protestant hymn is "Jesus Lover of My Soul." He shows explicit love for children-implicitly all children. As for the archetype of Wiseman or Magician, Jesus was known as a rabbi or teacher who brought new teachings and spoke with authority, and was also a miracle-worker. In short, Jesus summarizes and integrates all these basic archetypes, most especially when he says "I and the Father are one." For a father is called to be all of these: to bring the archetypes together and live all of them. He is the lover of his wife and children, the fighter for God and his family, a servant king within the household, and a source of knowledge and wisdom about the world. So once again we see the model of God as servant leader speaking to the needs and highest aspirations of male psychology. We see Christian fatherhood as a genuine model for removing the strong tendency of men either to abuse others or to betray their masculine gifts through weakness and cowardice.

Female archetypes, and the concept of mother

As described earlier, what is sometimes called "The Men's Movement" has used Jung's psychology to develop an understanding of male archetypes. Here let me propose that there are analogous female archetypes which are very clearly exemplified in Christian and especially Catholic theology and history.

These parallel archetypes are: the Queen, the Wisewoman/Magician, the Defender, and the Lover. Some might find it surprising that women have archetypes so clearly analogous to those of men, but I believe they do, although they take somewhat different form.

Let's start with the Wisewoman/Magician and look at the great female saints. Many of them were famous in their time, and still are today, for extraordinary wisdom and prophetic gifts. Many of these saints were also miracle-workers. And all saints, male and female, are believed to have performed miracles after their death; that is, indeed, an important element of the canonization procedure. Two of the great female saints are honored as "Doctors of the Church": Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila.

But the female saints understood themselves to be pale exemplars of the extraordinary wisdom of the Blessed Virgin, honored in the Litany by such titles as "Seat of Wisdom," "Mother of Good Counsel," "Virgin Most Prudent" and "Mirror of Justice." In any case, the archetype of the Wisewoman is found abundantly and is honored in the Catholic tradition.

As to the Defender (or Warrior), we need to reflect what is meant by this female power and struggle as distinct from those exercised and practiced by men. Women have historically been defenders of their children, their family, their people, rather than attackers. But they have fought mightily in these capacities. As most people know, don't ever mess with a bear cub! Your might run into a Momma.

Let's look again at the saints and the Virgin. Perhaps the best known female saintly warrior is Joan of Arc, who took up the sword to defend her people against foreign oppression. Another French saint is Genevieve, Patroness of Paris, who is said to have defended Paris when it was besieged by the pagan Franks under Childeric in the fifth century; Genevieve made a personal sortie with an armed band to obtain provisions for the Parisians. Later she won Childeric's respect, as well as that of Clovis. She is also credited with having kept Attila the Hun from attacking the city, through prayer and fasting.

But again Our Lady is the very prototype of the archetype. The Battle of Lepanto, a major turning point in the defense of Europe against Islam-against the Ottoman Turks-in 1571, was put under the protection of Our Lady; the memory of that victory is still celebrated in part by honoring her. One of Mary's titles is "Our Lady of Victory" which commemorates military victories achieved in various places under her patronage. But in her litany she has other similar titles, which emphasize both her power and her strong defense of her devotees: "Virgin Most Powerful," "Tower of David" and "Tower of Ivory." Catholic tradition affirms that Jesus refuses his mother nothing.

As for the Queen, Mary has from early centuries been understood as the Queen of Heaven. Her litany confirms her queenly nature many times. Let us recall those magnificent titles that we all know: "Queen of angels, Queen of patriarchs, Queen of prophets, Queen of apostles, Queen of martyrs, Queen of confessors, Queen of virgins, Queen of saints, Queen conceived without original sin, Queen assumed into heaven, Queen of the most holy Rosary, Queen of peace."

The Lover is left. This is an easy one; this archetype fits women extraordinarily well. We all know about women's capacity for love and devotion to others. We know the great number of Christian women whose love of God and of other people has deeply impressed the entire world. Love often takes different forms in men and women, but the basic archetype is the same. The last two archetypes of Lover and Queen are very powerfully summarized in the fifth Glorious Mystery-the Coronation. Here in heaven Mary is met in love by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and crowned. And Mary is the only human so honored; and she is the model of the soul's journey for all Christians-women and men.

Finally, these four great archetypes are, I believe, best summarized and integrated in the term and role of "Mother"-just as "Father" had the same function for men. A Mother is archetypally wise, queenly, fighter for her family, lover of husband and children.

To conclude, let me emphasize again the Christian model of manhood and womanhood as complementary. After decades of tension and paralyzing conflict over the roles of men and women in the Church, isn't it time to turn to a positive model that honors the sexes as different but as cooperative? Isn't it time for both sexes to honor the special gifts of the other? Isn't it time for the Church-of all places-to be open to such a recognition-the kind of recognition that makes a wedding feast such a glorious symbol of men and women having a wonderful time in a mutually complementary celebration.n

References

Arnold, P.M. (1992). Wildmen, Warriors and Kings: Masculine Spirituality and the Bible. New York: Crossroad.

Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem. NY: Basic Books.

Bly, R. (1990). Iron John. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Chodorow, N.J. (1990). Gender, Relation and Difference in Psychoanalytic Perspective. In C. Zenardi (Ed.) Essential Papers on the Psychology of Women. New York: New York University Press, 420-436.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gray, J. (1992). Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. New York: Harper Collins.

Moberly, E.R. (1983). Psychogenesis: The Early Development of Gender Identity. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Moberly, E.R. (1985). The Psychology of Self and Other. London: Tavistock Publications.

Moir, A. and Jessel, D. (1991). Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women. New York: Laurel (Dell).

Moore, R. and Gillette, D. (1990). King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine. San Francisco: Harper.

Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow.

[b]Just found this apropo to the thread, and very interesting, myself.