They say the seeds for this transformation lay in the High Middle Ages:
[I]n the Middle Ages, female mystics, following the lead of Catholic thinkers like Bernard of Clairvaux, began developing an interpretation of the bridegroom/bride relationship as representing that which existed not only between Christ and the collective church, but Christ and the individual soul. Jesus became not only a global savior, but a personal lover, whose union with believers was described by Christian mystics with erotic imagery. Drawing on the Old Testament’s Song of Songs, but again, using it as an allegory to describe God’s relationship with an individual, rather than with his entire people (as it had traditionally been interpreted), they developed a new way for the Christian to relate to Christ – one marked by intimate longing.I know quite a bit about the expressions of Christianity in the High Middle Ages, and I'd have to say that this was at that time very much an undercurrent of the faith. The roots may lay there, but that isn't how you see the faith being portrayed in either the scholarly writing of churchmen, or else the popular songs and tales of the era. It could be that they are right that this undercurrent informed a major shift in later periods, of course.
For example, the German nun Margareta Ebna (1291-1351) described Jesus as piercing her “with a swift shot from His spear of love” and exulted in feeling his “wondrous powerful thrusts against my heart,” though she complained that “[s]ometimes I could not endure it when the strong thrusts came against me for they harmed my insides so that I became greatly swollen like a woman great with child.”
The idea of Christian-as-Bride-of-Christ would migrate from Catholicism to Protestantism, and be picked up even by the dour Puritans who journeyed to American shores. Mather himself declared that “Our SAVIOR does Marry Himself unto the Church in general, But He does also Marry Himself to every Individual Believer.” Mather’s fellow Puritan leader, Thomas Hooker, preached that:“Every true believer . . . is so joined unto the Lord, that he becomes one spirit; as the adulterer and the adultresse is one flesh. . . . That which makes the love of a husband increase toward his wife is this, Hee is satisfied with her breasts at all times, and then hee comes to be ravished with her love . . . so the will chuseth Christ, and it is fully satisfied with him. . . . I say this is a total union, the whole nature of the Saviour, and the whole nature of a believer are knit together; the bond of matrimony knits these two together, . . . we feed upon Christ, and grow upon Christ, and are married to Christ.”That which was present at the founding of the country, grew to become part and parcel of American Christianity, especially its evangelical strain, and continues to play a significant role in influencing the language and ethos of the faith today.
In Why Men Hate Going to Church, David Murrow points to examples of how the bridal imagery born in the Middle Ages continues into the modern age, citing books with titles like Falling in Love With Jesus: Abandoning Yourself to the Greatest Romance of Your Life, and authors who “vigorously encourage women to imagine Jesus as their personal lover”:“One tells her readers to ‘develop an affair with the one and only Lover who will truly satisfy your innermost desires: Jesus Christ.’While much of what Murrow calls “Jesus-is-my-boyfriend imagery” is directed at women, Murrow believes it has become suffused throughout the entire faith, and “migrate[d] to men as well.” “These days,” he writes, “it’s fairly common for pastors to describe a devout male as being ‘totally in love with Jesus.’ I’ve heard more than one men’s minister imploring a crowd of guys to fall deeply in love with the Savior.’”
Another offers this breathless description of God’s love: ‘This Someone entered your world and revealed to you that He is your true Husband. Then He dressed you in a wedding gown whiter than the whitest linen. You felt virginal again. And alive! He kissed you with grace and vowed never to leave you or forsake you. And you longed to go and be with Him.’”
Still, in the Middle Ages, the eroticism of the faith is as likely to provide an erotic attraction for men as well as for women. As late as The Faerie Queene, the church-as-bride metaphor was being employed in a kind of dual way: Una symbolizes the church that is the bride of Christ, but Una herself weds to St. George as his reward for his dragonslaying virtue. The Grail Maiden, daughter of King Pelles, ends up seducing Lancelot (right after he too slays a dragon; Elaine only later marries him) and being the mother of Galahad (who fulfills the Grail quest through chastity, not eroticism). Lancelot is chosen by God to father Galahad on Elaine, according to the story, because he (like St. George) is a living flower of valorous knighthood. Service to God and erotic success are linked for men in these stories. Living out the noble virtues honored by the faith makes one worthy of love and beauty, which will be put by God to further service through the stability of one's marriage and the fates of one's children.
Thus, if the Bride of Christ narrative was as important for female mystics as the authors imply, that only creates parity, not a "feminization" of Christianity in the High Middle Ages. One might, of course, question whether or not eroticism is really even appropriate as a religious motivation; but whether it is or is not, it certainly was not an exclusively female (let alone 'feminizing') one. It was a regular justification for the most manly of the virtues (though note that, in The Faerie Queene, there is a female knight exercising these mostly-manly virtues; and there is at least one in the older Arthurian corpus as well).
As for their later periods, I am less well placed to provide a useful critique.
While there may have been some antecedents in the Middle Ages, I think all of this didn't really take off until after the 20th century world wars.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure I sound like a broken record, but there is a disconnect there from what had gone before to where we are now.
About 10 years ago, there was a spate of essays claiming that the Catholic Church had been "feminized." The essays began with the obvious: the expansion of altar ministries to women--specifically, as 'extraordinary ministers' of Communion and as 'altar girls.' The essays went on to remark on the 'absence of men' at regular Sunday Masses as the upshot of all this 'feminization.'
ReplyDeleteAdmitting that I have been exposed only to relatively 'conservative' Catholic parishes, I am unable to confirm the 'absence of men' claim. The crowds I see in the pews these days have the same relative male/female balance that they had in the Dark Ages when I was a boy (the mid-1950's.)
Science? NO!! The geographic area is minuscule, as is the number of parishes. I'd kinda like to see evidence.....but it isn't apparent to me, anyway.
I seem to recall at least two historians claiming that the "more women than men" at church is a very old phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteI realize there are probably levels I am not getting from your brief description of the story of Una and I admit to not having read The Faerie Queene. That said, the story as you describe it has an echo (or perhaps precursor) of the situation the authors describe during the Industrial Revolution:
ReplyDelete... men could outsource their family’s faith, sort to speak, leaving to their wives the responsibility for nurturing it in their home and in their children. Men could venture into worldly pursuits, and rely on women to draw them back to the hearth and upwards to heaven with their personal piety.
Tangentially, I would think the veneration of Mary could perhaps provide a less uncomfortable outlet for romantic (erotic seems a bit much) religious attachments for men. One of the links provided in the article indicates that the problem may be less severe in Catholicism: "(46% of parishioners are male versus 49% of the population)."
If it does indeed become counter-culture, even dangerous, to be a Christian, I wonder if that will draw more men back into an active role? Perhaps that will depend on what kind of community Christianity becomes when it is in disfavor: forceful or self-effacing?
I'm sure I've mentioned this book before, but Ross Douthat's Bad Religion is an interesting and very readable look at the history of Christianity in the United States. Mr. Douthat sees some of the same trends the authors of this essay do, although his emphasis is not on feminization but on heresy.
Oh, a couple of things: marital imagery to describe human beings' relationship to God is very old indeed-- the Old Testament very often uses it, whether as humans being adulterous wives, or God being the arriving bridegroom, or Wisdom personified as a (rich, accomplished, beautiful) woman, or the Song of Songs as an extended metaphor for our search for God. These weren't written by women mystics, nor were they as late a development as the Middle Ages.
ReplyDeleteChristianity has always been more appealing to the powerless than to the powerful-- it is, after all, following a God-man who would not retaliate when tortured to death in public. So, it is (and as far as we can tell, always has been) more female than male. Yet, we are all subject to weakness and powerlessness, at least at some times and in some ways, and orthodox Christianity is paradoxically, shockingly empowering-- allowing, say, a murdered 12-year-old girl to ultimately triumph over her attackers and the state that directed them.
In terms of particular churches, I always do a quick scan looking for the male-female ratio, and the age ratio. Healthy churches will be almost even male-female and balanced in age (everybody from infants to elderly, no one demographic dominating). Heavy skewing is a very bad sign, as the faith is not a living thing being passed on to all the people in the community and from one generation to the next. I've seen this due to "liberal" anomie, "conservative" judgmentalism, and bog-standard hypocracy... but most commonly, to the "liberal" variant.
Thank you, Laura. I don't believe we've spoken before, but I am always glad to meet thoughtful new commenters.
ReplyDeleteElise, TFQ is much more allegorical. Una doesn't take the lead on religious life so much as she symbolizes it.
But the High Medievals were not -- not before about 1400, when there is a change in tenor as we shift to the Late Middle Ages -- prone to viewing the feminine influence on men as bad or weakening. I've written a lot about that over the years. The Prose Lancelot is vast in its length, for example, but the influence of women on Lancelot is generally positive. The Lady of the Lake is not only a woman but a sorceress, and she gives him his introduction to knightly virtues; she also provides his introduction to King Arthur, who takes him on based on her recommendation.
Later, he kills a lady's husband in battle, and she commands him into prison. He goes, just because she said to go: after a while, she lets him ride off to tournaments now and then, but on the promise that he will return to jail later. His submission to her authority is not seen as proof of his weakness, but of his nobleness. He recognizes the harm he has done her by killing her husband, and is trying to make it good by submitting to her in return.
Even Guinevere's influence on Lancelot is originally good, giving rise to a number of high feats of knighthood and a long defense of the realm before spies and jealous men expose them. And, of course, Elaine's seduction is against his will -- she tricks him into thinking she is Guinevere -- but ultimately works to the good.
It's just a different picture of male and female relations. It's not hostile to masculine virtue, and it's not hostile to feminine influence on men. For some reason that changes circa 1400; it's an interesting question as to why, but the old stories start being told in a new way that is more hostile to and suspicious of feminine influence. And yet Chaucer and Malory are still in this era, and TFQ even later -- it's Elizabethan, which may explain why a courtier wrote a poem that was so pro-female that late. But Malory and Chaucer, writing cira 1450 and 1400 respectively, really just seem to have liked women.
Thanks, Grim. It would be interesting to understand why the stories shifted moving into the Late Middle Ages. I wonder if many people's views of women's role in the Middle Ages (including mine before some of your comments caused me to do a little research) come from the Late Middle Ages rather than the earlier periods.
ReplyDelete