Notes from Cambridge–Part 2
Cambridge, Massachusetts, is a perfect venue in which to consider the
topics of my two courses this semester—"God and Creation" and
"Feminist Theories and Theologizing"—for Cambridge is both
stunningly beautiful as regards nature and also a place rich in political
and sexual consciousness. When I selected these two classes I did not
think that they would necessarily fit together; rather, I chose them
because their subjects interested me as I envisioned my overall
educational program. Nevertheless, as I have embarked upon mountains of
reading, the two topics have become intertwined in my mind and spirit.
"Creation" has been narrowly construed in Western
consciousness as a stage upon which the drama of humanity unfolds. An
anthropocentric reading of Judeo-Christian scripture has seen nature as
provided by the Divine for the comfort of humankind. The human creature
was given "dominion" over the land, its plant-life, and
non-human animals; this dominion has been interpreted as exclusive use
which often results in abuse and exhaustion of the earth and its
resources. This Western view is in stark contrast to views of nature found
in Eastern and indigenous traditions, in which the earth and non-human
life is visualized in partnership with humankind: A Chinese etching my
professor showed our class portrays this difference in perspective quite
graphically by depicting the mountains and the clouds as the largest parts
of creation, while the male and female figures are the smallest; Native
American creation myths feature the animal kingdom co-creating the world
with the Divine.
In the West, Greek philosophical dualisms have been superimposed upon
our interpretations of divinity, humanity, and nature. Thus, we see a
hierarchy of polarities used to express relationships: divine vs. human,
human vs. non-human, spirit vs. matter, mind vs. body, male vs. female,
heterosexual vs. homosexual—with the second part of the pair usually
seen as the inferior of the two. A reclaiming of non-Western categories
and a critique of traditional theology and anthropology can result in a
more holistic view of the world. We can be "holy" and
"whole" if we are willing to re-imagine the links between
creator and creation, physical and spiritual, and masculine and feminine;
when we realize that each of these categories has been created or affected
by culture, we are able to mend our stance toward persons and nature by
dispensing with false essentialism and universality. We then can embrace
nature—humankind and otherkind, male and female, straight and gay—in
all of its diversity, appreciating that these categories are not
necessarily fixed, but are fluid and open to interpretation. When we do
so, we will realize that our interconnection with everything and everyone
else allows us to change what we don’t like and create other
opportunities for holiness and wholeness besides those we already
experience. When we see our world in this way—non-static, forever
changing, and open to possibilities—we will realize that it is never too
late to start fresh, never too late to fulfill a dream, never too late to
alter what troubles us.
Moreover, a non-static view of creation can make a powerful political
contribution to today’s world. If we are willing to acknowledge that
human categories of male and female, masculine and feminine, and
heterosexual and homosexual are artificially constructed by human beings,
we will be able to see that our physical realities (for example, a white,
straight, man; a black, lesbian, woman; or a biracial, bisexual,
transgendered person) need not determine our destinies. We are not locked
in to a certain set of rules or behaviors or beliefs simply by virtue of
our social location. Just because our creation myths talk about "Adam
and Eve" does not mean that there is no room for "Adam and
Steve" and "Amy and Eve." Just because civilizations have
heretofore recognized and blessed certain types of unions does not mean
that there are not other types to be included and celebrated. Just because
culture has enthroned a personal, theistic god does not mean that there is
no room for non-theistic ways of approaching the sacred.
In other words, when we envision creation as unlimited, we find that
both the creature and the creator are unlimited as well; and when we begin
to inform our everyday decisions and ways of life by means of this
mindset, we begin to recast our political world, our culture, and our
civilization according to a model of radical openness and creativity.
Blessed be!
Suggested Reading:
• Rosemary Radford Ruether, Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of
Earth Healing. New York: HarperCollins, 1992.
• H. Paul Santmire, The Travail of Nature: The Ambiguous Ecological
Promise of Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985.
The Rev. Tom Bohache has pastored the Metropolitan Community Church
of Rehoboth for seven years. Currently on a three-month sabbatical, Tom
has just begun a doctoral program at the Episcopal Divinity School in
Cambridge, Massachusetts. He receives email at
Back to Top of Page 