In Hinduism, every god has his shakti: his consort, who is his power and life. Vishnu has his Lakshmi, Shiva has his Parvati, Brahma has his Saraswati. From that standpoint, a purely masculine deity would be lonely and strange, almost an abomination. The modern loss of enchantment is almost certainly the result of the neglect of the feminine, since without the feminine, the god has no vital link left with the entire domain of immanence.
Overall, I think that Hinduism—in particular, Shakti theology and Kashmiri Shaivism—is highly consonant with your way of thinking. I would like to go baptize it, with Sophia being the shakti of the Lord. (The deep sense for the syzygy is also why much of Hindu art and sculpture can be so erotic, which more prudish Western sorts might be wont to mistake for vulgar or pornographic.)
I have thought about why Jesus was never married if we posit that marriage is a superior state to celibacy; and I think my answer, in the style of Böhme, is that Jesus must have been the perfect androgyne, carrying his shakti entirely within himself, the way that things probably were before the Great Divide. In that sense, one could suggest that Jesus wasn't so much celibate as he was sort of "pre-married", not having lost the ontological woman within himself.
I have also been playing with the typology of virgin, harlot, bride. To give a positive meaning to virgin that doesn't just denote the absence of the alleged "impurity" of sex, I think it would have to mean a primordial absence of separation. So, I'm thinking that the virgin dwells within God and has never been apart from God. Then the harlot (and I find Hosea to be key here) is the cosmic Woman projected outward and fallen into alienation from God, and the bride is the Woman restored to her communion with God—but from the outside, as it were, and not in the virgin's mode of primordial unity.
Finally, I think that Jung is pretty useful here, since shakti could just as well also be anima, and it seems cogent to suggest that Sophia is the anima of the Lord.
The Linga is the first and final form of creation. I think Christians could learn a great deal about sexuality from Hinduism in that regard. It's clearly in Scripture. It begins with a union between man and woman in Genesis and ends with a marriage in the book of Revelation.
What is all this talk of women? Why can there not be a masculine man and a feminine man, or a masculine woman and a feminine woman? Is the divide between male and female humans really so great and fundamental? Or is the complement between the same sexes with different expressions not divine, or more divine?
Excellent response Michael. I must admit, I deeply admire Origen and have to wrestle with the urge to defend him. On the other hand I make it a rule to never defend myself when it comes to ideas (unless I’m talking to my husband 😂) so I suppose Origen has things figured out by now. Thanks for challenging the status quo. We need more men and women like you.
When God said be fruitful and multiply, he was using liturgical language. The sexual act was the first liturgical act that our God called us to do (Gen. 1:28). The sexual act was the act that reproduced the image of God in creation and gave creation meaning. What makes us spiritual beings is our sexuality and how we use or how we express it as man or woman. It is the ultimate thing that the devil wishes to destroy. Destroy sexuality and God will no longer be active in creation because the image will cease.
Thanks, Michael, this is a good piece. I'm sorry you felt like a visitor from another planet on PVK's channel! We were happy to have you in the conversation and your perspective was needed.
In Hinduism, every god has his shakti: his consort, who is his power and life. Vishnu has his Lakshmi, Shiva has his Parvati, Brahma has his Saraswati. From that standpoint, a purely masculine deity would be lonely and strange, almost an abomination. The modern loss of enchantment is almost certainly the result of the neglect of the feminine, since without the feminine, the god has no vital link left with the entire domain of immanence.
Overall, I think that Hinduism—in particular, Shakti theology and Kashmiri Shaivism—is highly consonant with your way of thinking. I would like to go baptize it, with Sophia being the shakti of the Lord. (The deep sense for the syzygy is also why much of Hindu art and sculpture can be so erotic, which more prudish Western sorts might be wont to mistake for vulgar or pornographic.)
I have thought about why Jesus was never married if we posit that marriage is a superior state to celibacy; and I think my answer, in the style of Böhme, is that Jesus must have been the perfect androgyne, carrying his shakti entirely within himself, the way that things probably were before the Great Divide. In that sense, one could suggest that Jesus wasn't so much celibate as he was sort of "pre-married", not having lost the ontological woman within himself.
I have also been playing with the typology of virgin, harlot, bride. To give a positive meaning to virgin that doesn't just denote the absence of the alleged "impurity" of sex, I think it would have to mean a primordial absence of separation. So, I'm thinking that the virgin dwells within God and has never been apart from God. Then the harlot (and I find Hosea to be key here) is the cosmic Woman projected outward and fallen into alienation from God, and the bride is the Woman restored to her communion with God—but from the outside, as it were, and not in the virgin's mode of primordial unity.
Finally, I think that Jung is pretty useful here, since shakti could just as well also be anima, and it seems cogent to suggest that Sophia is the anima of the Lord.
Great comment.
The Linga is the first and final form of creation. I think Christians could learn a great deal about sexuality from Hinduism in that regard. It's clearly in Scripture. It begins with a union between man and woman in Genesis and ends with a marriage in the book of Revelation.
What is all this talk of women? Why can there not be a masculine man and a feminine man, or a masculine woman and a feminine woman? Is the divide between male and female humans really so great and fundamental? Or is the complement between the same sexes with different expressions not divine, or more divine?
Excellent response Michael. I must admit, I deeply admire Origen and have to wrestle with the urge to defend him. On the other hand I make it a rule to never defend myself when it comes to ideas (unless I’m talking to my husband 😂) so I suppose Origen has things figured out by now. Thanks for challenging the status quo. We need more men and women like you.
When God said be fruitful and multiply, he was using liturgical language. The sexual act was the first liturgical act that our God called us to do (Gen. 1:28). The sexual act was the act that reproduced the image of God in creation and gave creation meaning. What makes us spiritual beings is our sexuality and how we use or how we express it as man or woman. It is the ultimate thing that the devil wishes to destroy. Destroy sexuality and God will no longer be active in creation because the image will cease.
So true!
Thanks, Michael, this is a good piece. I'm sorry you felt like a visitor from another planet on PVK's channel! We were happy to have you in the conversation and your perspective was needed.