“If God…the President…the Pope…Were a Woman…What Would the World Be Like?”[1]

 INTRODUCTION: As a refresher, most of you remember that, Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has two creation stories: the first one in which the world is created in six days – the sixth day being the day that God created woman and man. That’s “The First Creation Account.” But in the following second chapter, there’s a different creation story, that’s actually older than the first. In “The Second Creation Account,” only man is created. He grows lonesome; so God creates a woman out of the man’s rib, calls the woman Eve and the man Adam.

However, in a nonscriptural account, the story’s told that before this creative flourish, God visited with Adam beforehand and told him about his plan to create a woman to keep him from being lonesome. But, he said to Adam, “It will cost you.” Adam asks, “How much?” God replies, “An arm and a leg.” Adam thinks a moment and counters, “How about a rib?”

Interestingly enough, when a high school buddy of mine had my father conduct his marriage, Dad made a point of emphasizing that God did not create woman from Adam’s head, but from his rib; and as Dad interpreted that, God’s using the rib was clearly meant to make a statement, that man was divinely intended to be head of the household.

Which makes for an interesting segue into the sermon topic of today:

“What if God…the president…and the pope…were men: How different would the world be?”

So the first question:

I. What If God Were a Woman?

Most archaeological scholars agree that the first gods that human beings created were female. That also meant there were priestesses, rituals and rites, emphasizing a feminine perspective.

Rabbi Harold Kushner writes in one of his books about these ancient female gods and their identity as fertility gods. In keeping with the agricultural model of planting and harvesting, so also with the worshipping of the gods of the crops and fertility: On the one hand, farmers planted their crops in the Spring, in the hopes of reaping a harvest in the late Fall; so also each Spring there were great religious festivals taking place in which the planting and reaping cycle was symbolized in fertility rites and festivals. Rabbi Kushner notes that church attendance was always high at this time.

Nonetheless, the first images of deity matched the reality of the world in which the people lived. Sowing, cultivating, harvesting, and nurturing were part and parcel of the creation cycle they experienced, and they expressed it in their religious faith.

We do as well: We’ve all witnessed or experienced baptism and dedication ceremonies for infants. We’ve also been part of coming of age ceremonies such as confirmation, bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah. The same for marriage, funerals, and memorials. We rely on religious ritual to symbolize the importance of the great passages of our lives.

It started with our primitive ancestors, except that initially it was in relation to female gods. Most archaeological studies suggest that with this religious practice, there was a concomitant feminization of society. Women had a much more dominant role than their male counterparts. God was thought of as the Great Mother who gave birth to all of life in the universe. Unlike later Judaeo-Christian beliefs, God was no virgin queen, but a fertile conduit of sexuality and the source of creativity.

The only thing seemingly lacking in these feminine societies that worshipped female gods was warfare. Archaeological digs suggest a distinct absence of defensive walls around their cities, and their gravesites had few if any weapons buried with them. By all accounts, they were both advanced and peaceful.

 So what happened to change that? Between 1000 and 2000 BCE, the record suggests that earthquakes and volcanic activity seemed to hit many areas. It resulted in changing migration and location patterns. The most significant influence seemed to come when tribes from the North filtered South. They were much more aggressive, larger physically, depended upon horses and had developed the use of swords. The cultures in their paths Southward were no match. And with this infusion, also came their gods, who were male.

We of course are most familiar with this through our own Jewish heritage. The early records of Judaism as contained in the early books of the so-called Old Testament are awash with the controls that were put upon women, and the harsh punishment that ensued for violation by women of these sexual regulations. In contrast to the festival nature of fertility and reproduction that went along with female deities, with male deities came an emphasis upon female virginity, and brutal punishment for female promiscuity. (As an aside, it’s always female virginity that’s at stake, not male.)

One example: a new bride on her first night of marriage, who does not leave “the tokens of virginity” in her bed, as the King James Version of the Bible so quaintly puts it, she shall be taken back to her father’s house, and the men of the city shall stone her to death. In other words, not bleeding on the first night of the honeymoon was a death sentence (Deuteronomy 22:21f).

With this came also the concept of women as belonging to a man, that is, his sexual property, first and foremost, but his, regardless. You will recall that even in America, upon our founding as a nation, when a widow with property married a man, the property transferred to her new husband, and stayed with him even if they later divorced.

(That’s one of the many items I’m always keenly aware of when I hear Supreme Court Justices like Anthony Scalia talk about “orginalism” in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, namely, finding the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. The truth is that the Constitution is an organic document that has grown in width and depth, and depends upon a host of factors for interpretation, not the only one of which is what it actually states; rather, what interpretation should now be given to that statement, in the light of these times. The present court, from Bush v. Gore to last week’s critical ruling lifting any limits on donations by corporations and unions to election campaigns, is ruled by ideology, not any “original” constitutional meaning.)

The point being that we in America trace our religious and political history to bands of roving tribes in the Middle East that began to amalgamate in the second and third millennia before the Common Era. It was from them that we inherited the notions of women as property, men as head of the household, multiple wives, men-only conducting religious rites and rituals, and of course, God was thoroughly masculine…which meant he sanctioned brutal and bloody battles, even to the killing of women and children. One Psalm even refers to banging the heads of the infants of the enemy against the wall.

            But were we to think of God as feminine, one of the most important changes would be: in our attitudes towards the environment. If we view the Earth as our mother, we respect and take care of her. We would also place greater value upon the rest of creation with whom we share this relationship. And we would work harder to bring about global peace on Earth, rather than support the destructive nationalism in America that fraudulently poses as patriotism.

II. WHAT IF THE PRESIDENT WERE A WOMAN?

In 1787, when the U.S. Constitution was ratified, women did not have the right to vote. It took 133 years for that wrong to be corrected, with the ratification of the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution in 1920. But 90 years later, we’ve had no woman elected president, although in the last presidential primary campaign, Senator Hillary Clinton came closer than any woman ever had to being the nominee of one of the two national parties. And in the general election, women have run as vice-president, and some think the Republican nominee for vice-president last election seems to be preparing for a run at president next go around in 2012.

But rather than political speculation, is there any uniquely female dimension to the administration of a woman president. If he were a she?

As others have described it, some of the defining distinctions between women and men refer to our earliest days as a species. The amygdale near the base of the brain triggers our response mechanisms in time of threat. We know that for men there are two automatic responses: fight or flight. Run or battle. Those are basic male characteristics for survival.

Until of late, those were also thought to be representative of women as well. But recent studies have suggested that it’s not at all the case. Rather, women have two characteristic responses in time of threat. They are: nurture and network. That means they take care of the children and those most at risk, and they reach out to others for help.

Now compare those in your mind for a moment: instead of fight, nurture; instead of flight, network with those in need. What if nurture and networking were the innate hallmark of the presidency, rather than fight or flight?

Former President George W. Bush described himself as a “war” president. He described the post 9-11 global situation as “you’re either for us or against us.” And in his administration, he was the “decider in chief.” Those were uniquely male characteristics: fight, make a stand, and choose sides.

But if a woman were president and she were true to her nature of nurture and networking, what would be some hallmarks of her administration?

That’s a tough question to answer, especially in the light of what has happened to governance in the U.S. of A. The voice of the people continues to grow small and the light of government by the people grows dim. It is now virtually impossible for a person of modest means to run for elected office, without the support of moneyed interests. And money comes to candidates only if they are willing to vote as the money wants. The only way for any woman, or man for that matter, to have a decisive role of leadership is if there is public money available to run a campaign. There is little if any interest in Congress for their money faucet not only to be turned off, but to be removed. And we the people are the loser.

I don’t know if you noticed or not but some 40 or so corporate executives sent a letter to Congressional leaders this past Friday. Their message was to urge public financing for House and Senate campaigns. Senate campaigns would be paid for by a fee on businesses that get $10 million or more in government contracts; House campaigns would be paid by auctioning of the television broadcast spectrum that was opened when we switched to digital broadcasting.[2]

If something like that happens and our nation regains its political sanity…and a relatively independent woman were elected president, what might we expect…if she were true to her nature of nurture and networking?

Wouldn’t poverty, education, and healthcare be at the top of the list? And in foreign affairs, surely we could scale back on the nearly 800 military bases we have around the world; and in turn, reemphasize our treaties and our place at the United Nations.

With a woman president, more women would run for high office, and more women appointed to positions of influence and power. Women might be the ones making the decisions about abortion.

And if they really became powerful, sex education and the use of contraceptives would be widespread, and no young boy or girl would be forced to make decisions about sex based on ignorance rather than information.

 The reality is that the financial collapse of our free enterprise system is endemic of more than greedy bankers and sold-out politicians. It’s reflective of a nation where we no longer see decision-making as a people matter…more and more we feel less and less empowered.

In the nation of Chile, located on the very tip of South America, they were suffering through the brutal dictatorship of Gen. Augustus Pinochet, after our CIA colluded in the assassination and overthrow of president Salvador Allende. When things became so bad, and citizens were being “disappeared” without warning, the mothers of the nation began what seems like a futile effort. They took their pots and pans and banged them in their yards at night in protest against a murderous president who ruthlessly ruled. That may sound futile, but it was one contributing factor to an overthrow of the dictator.

Men have ruled for 223 years. It may be time to try something else: nurture and networking, rather than fight or flight.

III. WHAT IF THE POPE WERE A MAN?

As most of us know, the Roman Catholic Church does not ordain women to be priests, bishops, or popes. The practice is based upon the fact that Christian scripture reports that only men were apostles originally. But here are some of what might happen if the pope were a woman:

1. There would be plenty of priests. The church has a huge shortage of priests at every level. Locally, Bishop Verot High School is soon to be without a priest as principal for the first time in its history. Every mainline denomination in almost every nation in the world has more than enough clergy, except for the Roman Catholic Church. Presently, that means lack of ministerial services and a façade of the church maintaining that only priests are performing the sacraments, when in fact lay men and women are having to; otherwise there would be none.

2. Priests would marry. I have always found it somewhat incongruous that bachelor bishops and bachelor priests issue pronouncements on what can and can’t be so about marriage and relationships, without the foggiest personal experience of what’s involved in making a marriage work.

3. The church would cease to be so hierarchical. Today, the church is ruled from the top down. With a woman as pope, there would of necessity be a turn towards networking and working together. Currently, Rome is conducting a major survey and investigation of female orders, at the same time that it is going bankrupt in some dioceses due to significant moral failings on the part of a small segment of its male priests. It’s time to change their focus and practice.

CONCLUSION.

The story goes that when God finished the creation of Adam, He stepped back, scratched his head, and said, "I can do better than that!" And he created Eve. Thank God for women. And every man said, “Amen.”

Shalom. Salaam Aleikum. Amen. And blessed be.