Princess Theology - part II

by Jacqui Grey

The call for images that address Pentecostal women beyond the role of princess is crucial. Throughout this discussion, it has become clear that the use of metaphors and images in the pastoral context has limitations. No one image can accurately capture the message it attempts to convey; to expect otherwise is a misunderstanding of the nature of metaphors.

Secondly, the discussion highlights the role of metaphors (in the reading of biblical texts and pastoral context) as essential for offering women a vision beyond their present circumstances for a future reality. In the Old Testament (OT) that future hope was in the geographic-political kingdom of Israel. For the church, this vision is for an alternative reality called the 'kingdom of God’. This is a vision of what the church is called to be, far from the values and rules of our present culture. It presents for the reader an alternative reality – a life shaped by God and the values of God’s kingdom. We are to hunger and thirst for righteousness, not the greed of the world for material possessions or power or status, but desire the values of the kingdom of God

So how do metaphors help create this reality? Metaphors and images are word pictures – they create an idea of what something is by comparing it to something else. They present a comparison between the subject and the image. We don’t understand metaphors to be literal. For example, when we read 27:1 – “The Lord is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear?”, God is not literally a light, but we inherently know that this is an image. This is an unconscious recognition of the genre of the psalm that indicates how we should read it. It is creating a picture of what God is like by comparing Him to light. 

Often in the OT, the images are stereotypical – they are conventional images drawn from the culture and tradition of Israel and the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) world. These images are deeply entrenched in the culture. So, for example, in modern Western culture we have standard, stereotypical images for Christmas. The secular image is, of course, Santa Claus. Santa is fat, dressed in red, has a big white beard, rides a sleigh pulled by reindeer, makes his entry down a chimney with a sack full of toys on his back, and leaves them under the Christmas tree. Try and ‘modernise’ or amend this image in our culture and it doesn’t work. Santa cannot have a goatie, be slim, or wear green, or drive a mini-van, or leave the toys on the front door step. A deviation may be tolerated as part of a cartoon or send-up, but the tradition is well ingrained. Although most Christians would recognise this image as secular and not consistent with the biblical events and message of salvation that the Christmas story presents, it is nonetheless a standard and well entrenched image in our broader society.  The Old Testament poets use similar stereotypical language. While we have our own images, the culture of the ANE world had its own stereotypical images that were ingrained. So the image of God as a warrior was fairly stereo-typical. When God appears in battle, it is fairly standard language that is used. God marches down in anger – accompanied by storms, dark clouds, thunder, lightning and heavy rain. His appearance effects the cosmos as the earth quakes and the Lord’s enemies melt in fear or run away. This language for God became part of the culture of Ancient Israel in how they perceive God. While it has its foundations in their collective memory (their history), the presence of God at Sinai at the Exodus is remembered in this way with the appearance of lightning and clouds and terror. But it also had become so ingrained in their culture that its difficult to separate it as an image and as a reality. This also means that it was meaningful to the OT culture, but not particularly meaningful to us as contemporary readers. This highlights one of the difficulties of reading metaphors - the power of the image or metaphor is sometimes lost to the modern reader in the distance of time (eg the significance of the shepherd in Psalm 23). The prophets of the OT generally used images and metaphors familiar to the life of their audience, but may not be as familiar to us. So we must understand what the image means in the culture and then translate the image to explain the biblical image to those outside the culture. We must aim to understand the image.

We have a similar situation as we are considering the employment of the princess metaphor in contemporary Pentecostal usage. For many observers, the use of princess imagery may seem to be just pretty decorations and flourishes that underscore a shallowness of spirituality. Particularly Aristotle thought that metaphors were just flowery language – they are embellishments or decorations to make the speaker sound clever. But this view of imagery has shifted in literature and biblical studies to realise that the use of metaphors and imagery, especially by the prophets and poets of the OT are more than just decorations. What an image expresses cannot be said directly. If it could be said directly then they would say it, but it cannot. Particularly in describing God, we can see the value of imagery. Example, to a people that are removed from God or do not know God, and cannot see God, how do the prophets describe God? - how do we describe God? In one sense, God is indescribable. He can’t say … “well, he’s six foot tall with dark-ish light-ish hair.” If we could say it directly, then we would - but for a people that do not have our experience, our vocabulary, it is difficult. As Sally McFague writes, imagery, or metaphor, then, becomes a strategy of desperation, not decoration. It is an attempt to say something of the unfamiliar in terms of the familiar. It’s an attempt to speak about what do we do not know in terms of what we do know. Even the prophet in Isaiah 40:25 says: ‘To whom, then, can you compare me; To whom can I be likened – says the Holy One.’ This is ironic because God cannot be compared to anything, but yet in the desperation to conceptualise God, to understand God’s character, we must compare God to things and relationships we understand. But it goes even further than this, because sometimes the individual words in the comparison transform our understanding of each. For example, the image or metaphor used in Ps 27:1 – “The Lord is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear?” Maybe our understanding of light is transformed by the comparison with God – that somehow light is more transcendent, appreciated and maybe God seems more warm, or golden or clear or even readily available everywhere (as light is) – so the concepts are transformed by the comparison.

So sometimes, images used to describe God will use human attributes or characteristics to describe God. This includes the description of God as king. To speak of God as king is to recognise that God is in charge of the world, that God is glorious, that God’s people attend to him and him to them. For us as prophets and poets in the contemporary Pentecostal movement, the use of imagery is also a strategy of desperation. While the use of princess imagery is loaded with misconceptions and dangers, it also highlights the desperation in many women to receive and give healthy pride and self-love. The challenge for the segments of the Pentecostal movement that utilise this image is to recognise the desperation it has evoked with pastoral concern, and be transformed by positive elements of the image, but to recognise its limitations. However, what is often at stake in Western society and highlights one of the dangers of an unreflective ‘princess theology’ is the idolisation of the physical body and consequent self-loathing of women who ‘fall short of the glory of their god’. The undermining of women’s self-love and pride in their physical appearance by the ‘culturally negotiated’ ideals[1] of Western society is in direct contradiction to the values of God expressed in the creation story. As Barger writes,

Because our search for an authentic self takes place within a cultural dialogue, and in our culture physical beauty is pre-eminent, the search for transcendent beauty has derailed into a focus on the body. The pursuit of physical beauty has swallowed up the pursuit of transcendent beauty. This prevents the body from fulfilling its true spiritual role of pointing us to God.[2]

And yet, as Moltmann notes, that in the history of God the human body is similarly pointing towards the redemption offered by Christ and the hope of new creation previewed by Christ through his bodily resurrection.[3] Therefore the identification of women as princesses (which is the fusion of two images of God: parent and king) is not about their physical beauty, social status or privilege, rather, it is about being in relationship to God and other members of God’s family. The value of individual women is not based on their perceived worth relative to another person, society or the marketability of their bodies. As Grenz writes, “Rather than being the determiners of value, humans are commanded by God to acknowledge the value he ascribes to each person.”[4] The value of individual women is based on the value God ascribes to them as created in His image and relationship to Him. They are created to fellowship with God (their true Father), each other and creation.[5]

However, just as the use of metaphor throughout the Psalms (and OT) reminds us that a single image is not enough to describe God. Instead, the OT prophet often combines images to compare and contrast, and give greater depth of understanding to the character and nature of God. This is why multiple images are used describing God as not only a shepherd but also a warrior, father, mother and light. What this use of metaphor also highlights is that there can be no direct description. God is not just a shepherd or a king. We cannot encapsulate all that God is in one word or one sentence because there is always more. The use of metaphor recognises that its description is partial. God is like a shepherd, but that is not all that God is. To speak of God as a shepherd is to invite us to consider some qualities associated with a shepherd as one partial but illuminating way of speaking of certain aspects of God’s relationship to us. But we also inherently recognise that the description is partial; God is not only a shepherd. But at least it is an attempt to describe the indescribable. This also means that no single metaphor or image will be enough to describe God. Since no one metaphor or image refers properly or directly to God, many are necessary. Different metaphors emphasise different aspects of God, so all are necessary. So even though they are partial and inadequate, they are also desperately needed. So also the use of princess is not enough to describe end envision Pentecostal women.

It is important that we grasp this truth in not only reading the biblical texts, but also in our pastoral ministry. Metaphors present an alternative understanding and experience of God. According to Brettler, successful metaphors create something new – or at least inspire something new; a greater dimension of who God is and how God operates within our world. This is what the prophet and poet does – inspires through images, new ways of understanding God. Jesus inspires through the imagery of the kingdom of God, a new reality. For many Pentecostal women, the princess imagery evokes the possibility of an alternative reality. However for many women, the connotations of the image are not so positive. It reminds us that this single image is not enough.  Instead, new ways for women to see themselves and their important contribution to the Christian church are necessary.  New images are necessary that inspire an alternative reality – a life shaped by God and the values of God’s kingdom. New images that encourage women to be active participants in the kingdom of God in rejection of the greed of the world for material possessions or power or status are desperately needed for the women of this generation to rise to their callings in the power of the Spirit.

 

---

[1] Ibid, p.36

[2] Ibid, p.34

[3] J. Moltmann, God in Creation: An ecological doctrine of creation,

London

: SCM Press, 1985, p.246

[4] S. Grenz, p.186

[5] Ibid, p.185

Comments

[Deborah Taggart]

this is lovely, Jacqui :)

So Josh's song ('senior pastor') can be seen as part of the prophetic poetry to create more images of equal value, empowerment and liberation for Pentecostal women ;)

I wonder what other images we can come up with....I will have to keep thinking.

[Dreu Harrison]

Seeking Clarification: Doing or Being?

I find it interesting in a discussion on prevalent images of women and/or men in Pentecostal representations that little mention has been made of the distinction between sex and gender.

Sex maybe understood as a biological datum (the body) while gender is socially constructed (meaning socially conferred on the body). My basic position is that bodies are important and have a range of meanings that can be ascribed to them by various cultures. I do not endorse a pure constructivism which tries to erase bodies as mere sites of cultural inscription - bodies limit by there very solidity, function and commonality the range of meanings that can be given to them. Of course, the interesting part of my position is: (i) how does society decide which meanings are appropriate and which are inappropriate? (ii) how does technology affect the range of meanings society permits for bodies? (iii) how does the notion of gender as performative versus constitutive alter our understanding of bodies?

To explain this last point more clearly, I would direct people to the work of Judith Butler, a feminist theorist who writes:

"There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; ... identity is performatively constituted by the very ‘expressions’ that are said to be its results."

In other words, gender is something I do at particular times rather than who I am at all times. I would argue, circa feminist theory and post-colonial theory, that the range of meanings bodies can engage is in fact broader than what the status quo holds.

To give an example of where this thinking leads, the question we might ask in critiquing the masculine hegemonic view of gender in Western discourse is why male bodies came to be allied to logos (rationality) while women were relegated to eros (emotion) in Western cultural formations. Why, given that it is grossly inaccurate, stereotypical and insulting to say simply that 'men are logical and women are intuitive', would our culture have adopted precisely this interpretation of bodies? The answer, in part, lies in the fact that 'logical' was more valued thus men were recognised and sanctioned as uniquely fit to be leaders and primary earners. However this state of affairs is an accident of history, not a divine fiat. Thus, we are compelled to move beyond an essentialist view of gender and identity into the more challenging, though not unlimited, interplay of modern constructed identities as well as recognition that without acknowledging the place of power and socialisation any comments on what it means to be masculine or feminine will probably end up simply affirming whatever view faddishly prevails at this time.

In relation to ‘princess theology’ then, I largely reject this discourse but not for the usual reasons. I accept that princess theology is simply one more self-conscious gender performance, that is, it is trying to inscribe female bodies with particular sets of meanings and values seen to align themselves with what ‘redeemed persons’ are about. However, I reject it because to me it is too easily read as yet another iteration of female cooptation and commodification with too little reflective effort. You can say women are princesses (there is no essential argument against it) however such statements affirm women in a way that is complicit with capitalism and the male ‘colonising’ gaze so you shouldn’t (there is a political argument against it). For my view, it is just not subversive, or, better yet, open enough in allowing for a range of meanings. Finally, I would note that the argument that ‘princess theology gives women esteem and therefore is of merit’ is a touch too ‘popular utilitarian’ for my liking. It is a worthy goal to give women a sense of worth, esteem and love. But ends do not justify means – one cannot say that because a program achieves this it is socially justifiable. Nationalism gives people a strong sense of identity but also tends to instil them with an inordinate tendency to blow stuff up…

In true Dreu style, I’ll end with Foucault (just to satisfy Josh and Ben):

“As the archeology of our thought easily shows, man is an invention of recent date. And one perhaps nearing its end.”

Oh, the possibilities...

[jdowton]

Oh Dreu,
How many times have I told you not to use the "F" word (Foucault) in Christian discussions.
It's just not appropriate...
: )

[jdowton]

I have some questions:
1) Can the 'Princess" metaphor be redeemed? Just like language can change over time (eg the use of the word 'gay'), can the meaning of metaphors be changed over time? If we understand the negative baggage of the term 'Princess', can it be infused with positive notions that overcome the baggage?
2) If we understand that one metaphor can never encapsulate the whole of what we are talking about, what other metaphors can be used alongside the "princess" imagery to bring out the positives?
3) Can we convince our marketing machines to use theologically balanced imagery in their campaigns?
(I understand that it doesn't look as good to have a note underneath the "Princess, Warrior, Daughter" logo explaining in detail the theological significance of the imagery and instructions on how to escape the negative connotations. For one thing, it really ruins an otherwise nice pink t-shirt)

[bclark]

In answer to Josh's question 3) and in honour of Grenz's approach to Trinitarian theology I give you the 'Trinity' metaphor......It has so much to say to ladies in our churches.

http://www.onwardoverland.com/matrix/trin.jpg

hehehehehe