# 442: BOOK OF THE WEEK — “Woman in Sacred History”
Story behind the Book Choice
Like most other students of American Studies, I met Harriet Beecher Stowe at some point in my introductory lectures or seminars on American history. She was an abolitionist and wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin; one of the most decisive pieces in American literature when it comes to its political significance. The book opened the eyes of the nation to the issue of slavery and to the violation of ‘human rights,’ as we might express it today. There is no way to prove that this book actually contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War (as annecdotal evidence has it in relation to her meeting with President Lincoln) but it did, for sure, contribute significantly to the public debate about the issue. Little did I know at the time when studying American Studies that I would ever encounter Beecher Stowe again in theology.
In a seminar on feminist theology which I am taking this semester, we need to present a book. Finding a suitable and interesting one turned out to be a challenge for me and then, while reading some other book not connected to the seminar, I came across a reference to Beecher Stowe and Woman in Sacred History. I liked the title at once because “sacred” to me has a more spiritual connotation than holy or theological or whatever. So, I got the book and it took me a while to get into it. It is very dense and written in a way that the reader learns about the different women characters in the Bible; one by one, each dealt with from the unique exegetic perspective of Beecher Stowe. And I have to say, as the coach who I also am, this book is a source of empowerment because it is written this way — intentionally. It is not a bashing of the authors of the Bible or its interpretors due to their male bias, as you find it in many other feminist works. Instead, it allows you to read these characters in a positive way, one that allows you to see their femininity alongside their unique (emancipatory) strength.
- Femininity
Yesterday in a meeting, a very smart and outstanding woman mentioned the power of women, their God-given gifts, and how men are afraid of that. This passage above reminds me of this. I know, many feminists will freak out when they read about seemingly stereotypical descriptions of femininity and gender characteristics. I do not give a shit about this. We all have female and male energy inside. And the feminine side is the one that connects us to the earth, to the spirit, to God, if you will. I do not have other words to describe this. But the sensitivity of the female part of our identity allows us to see with our hearts, to feel, to sense, to understand what cannot be seen. Beecher Stowe describes this here with the word “tenderness” and allows the reader to see that in Moses. And seeing this trait in male characters, in leadership figures, automatically elevates the female power.
This is what Beecher Stowe achieves from the start. She allowed me as the reader to see the positive side of femininity in all the descriptions of the women she offers. And by “positive” I do not mean some exaggerated strength or invincibility. Quite to the opposite, she allows one to see the strength in tenderness and what others might see as stereotypical weakness of the female sex. Writing a book like this in the 19th century was more than visionary. I just do not see that contemporary feminists are visionary in bashing books like this one. They need to be more tender with their own identity, I think.
2. Egoism
The absence of egoism touched upon here in the context of Moses and characterized as “motherly” is at the core of faith. I first learned about this when I dealt with Buddhism in depth. That was quite at the beginning of my spiritual quest. In the meantime, I have learned that the absence of egoism — really of ‘self’ — is at the core of all religions in some way or another. At the point when you trust in a higher force, call it God or something else (e.g., universe, the Divine…), you give YOURSELF to someone/something else. And that automatically means you do not think you are the center of the world anymore. And discussing this aspect in the context of Moses is quite illuminating. It gives one another perspective to look at Moses as one of the “leadership” figures in the Bible.
The point where it gets a little tricky is the one where self and ego collide. Finding out who you truly are, YOU, as this unique individual, is a spiritual calling, I think. God sees us the way we truly are but the problem is, it often takes us almost a lifetime to find out about it. And every step of self-discovery also offers another chance and therefore danger to boost your ego. Of course, whenever you discover something about yourself — be it “good” or “bad” in the first place — and you start integrating it, you start accepting and finally loving it in line with what you think God wants from you; you gain self-confidence. And the line between self-confidence and egoism is thin — very thin.
But the thing we very often do not associate with the term is the one of “will.” This is hinted at above with respect to the “personal interests” of Moses. And that is something that has taken me a long time to comprehend. It is just really unfolding now. As supposedly successful and intelligent human beings, we always try to DO our best and ACT in a way that we achieve results and pursue our GOALS and so on. Even if these goals are GOOD, i.e., in line with compassion and the content of the scriptures, as a matter of fact, we do have a will and we want something. And really letting go of this, just letting things happen, letting them come to you as God’s will, that is something that takes time and feels quite weird. It requires ultimate trust in God. It requires you to really embrace everything that happens. But it is exactly this loss of egoism which is so liberating. A friend and colleague of mine sent me this quote from Buddhism last week and it really captures the message quite well:
“Happiness starts where expectations end.”
3. The Unsaid
Beecher Stowe devotes one of the very last chapters to Mary — the most celebrated mother of the universe, one might say. But this thing she works out here is really fascinating to me because it picks up a matter which I have never paid attention to before: Mary’s voice. Most of the time when we talk about feminism it is about women opening their mouths in one way or another — it is about women having a voice in response to being quieted throughout male-dominated history. The logic behind this is quite simple, at least at first: Only women can be noted who appear somewhere, i.e., in historical records. That means they must have become visible. And visibility is usually gained by action and that action most often is associated with speaking or writing in public, in addition to DOING political work, of course.
What I like so much about this reading of Mary is that Beecher Stowe contradicts this tacitly accepted dogma that women need to speak up in order to gain power. Her interpretation stresses the power of silence. The power of NOT speaking up. The power of just letting things be the way they are. That is true wisdom. And if you think about the truly wise people you might know, you will notice that many of them do not speak much, they are not the loud ones, at least not in situations in which there is some serious issue happening or being debated. And this is something that feminists today, I think, should ponder a bit. I know I am getting myself into trouble here but it is not my intention to criticize feminism — either academic or political/activist feminism. My longing is to question that words make all the difference. Words in action are much more powerful. And for the truly moving action of love, there very often are no words.
“Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the Word of God and do it.”
Reflection Questions
1) What do you think “feminine qualities” are when it comes to leadership?
2) Are there good sides to egoism according to your perspective? If yes, which ones?
3) Do you think that not saying things can be more powerful than speaking up? Why is that?