Cultivating the garden
An analysis of Candide by Voltaire

The question of what constitutes “the best life” is subjective; a common issue of both interest and unrest in most human beings. Voltaire, a prolific French writer known for his satirical wit and examination of civil liberties, makes a strong case for what the best life is in his novella, Candide. Meaning “optimistic,” in French, derived from the Latin word of “pure” or “white,” the sheltered main character’s positivity and “everything happens for a reason” philosophy is put to the test through unspeakable trials, many of which were based on actual world events.

People search for love, money, and beauty in pursuit of happiness, and idealize and rationalize why things happen. To Voltaire, the world is rather dystopian. His vision of the best life is simple: In order to live the best life for oneself given the happenstance of the chaotic world, one must live day-to-day, presently, and work—making effort to improve, be productive, and give back—an undertaking individuals can do only for themselves.

Many people contemplate the problem of evil in the world, and Voltaire deeply explores and exposes it throughout Candide. Pangloss, the character who represents that philosophy of optimism, is put through trial after debilitating trial, eventually to resign from his position of positivity in which he had believed so much. Candide himself was quite the naive character, growing up in the idealistic castle of Westphalia and becoming learned through Pangloss. Of good character, “he combined an honest mind with great simplicity of heart” (Candide Ch.1 p. 1), which contributed greatly to his naivete. He simply hadn’t “lived” yet.

After Candide’s requited falling in love with Cunegonde, the Westphalian Baron’s daughter, the two shared a kiss and Candide was promptly kicked to the curb. This unraveled a series of unfortunate events which took Candide all across the world from Westphalia to South America, to other parts of Europe, to finally settle in Constantinople.

Pangloss taught Candide that everything happens for a reason, and all that human suffering was for the best; part of God’s grand scheme of life. Of course, it is easy for one to believe that while living in the comfortably regal Westphalia castle with little concern or worries. Candide fervently subscribed to this belief, even after his first two incidences of hardship.

When Candide literally got the boot, two men in blue approached him, offering to take him to dinner and assist him. “Not only will we pay your bill this time, we will never allow a man like you to be short of money; for men were made only to render one another mutual aid” (Candide Ch. 2 p.3), they told him. “You are quire right,” said Candide; “it is just as Dr. Pangloss always told me, and I see clearly that everything is for the best” (Candide Ch. 2 p.3).

After dinner, the men promptly captured and enslaved Candide for the King of the Bulgars, giving him up to thousands of lashings of the whip.

Candide was pardoned by the King moments before his death and went begging in a nearby town. When asked by a man if he had come to serve “the good cause,” Candide replied: “There is no effect without a cause; all events are linked by the chain of necessity and arranged for the best. I had to be driven away from Miss Cunegonde, I had to run the gauntlet, I have to beg my bread until I can earn it; none of this could have happened otherwise” (Candide Ch. 3 p.6).  After he was again abused at the hand of man after this response, Candide maintained his outlook when he was assisted by an Anabaptist named Jacques who cared for him.

Soon after, Candide reunited with a decrepitly marred and dying Pangloss, who told him that Cunegonde had been killed in a massacre at Westphalia. Upon coming to from his faint, Candide asked, “Ah, best of worlds, what’s become of you now” (Candide Ch. 4 p.7)? This is the first sign we see of Candide beginning to doubt his ever-sunny disposition, but Pangloss almost successfully manages to convince Candide otherwise; that it was all a part of the game of life.

Candide’s story unravels in a quick-paced narration of his misadventures across the world after he finds out that Cunegonde was, in fact, alive. As he travels around the globe, one bad thing after another happening, he meets several people along the way which serve in both the strengthening and the breaking of his spirit.

Candide chose an elderly scholar named Martin to be his traveling partner because this particular man’s life’s journey was full of incredible tribulations. Martin was the voice of stark, negative cynicism throughout. He contra-argued everything Pangloss had instilled in Candide, leading to many heated intellectual philosophical debates. In response to Candide’s assertion that “troubles are just the shadows in a beautiful picture,” Martin counters, “The shadows are horrible ugly blots” (Candide Ch. 22 p. 51).

While Martin had many valuable points, his character was too extreme for Candide’s optimism: Martin did cause Candide to think and question his beliefs, but overall was mainly a counterpoint to Pangloss and a reason for Candide to further rationalize the unfortunate events of his life.

“Optimistic” is definitely a word I use to describe myself. I’ve had my fair share of struggles and obstacles to overcome, but I’ve always believed that hard times build character. One difference between myself and the character Candide, however, is that I subscribed to the philosophy of optimism simultaneously while growing up amid trying circumstances. I believe that Candide’s (and even Pangloss’ to an extent) ever-positive attitude was different, because he fervently believed it while his life was perfect. Then, when the true trials came, it only took so long before that notion was dashed.

Although I prefer to see the glass as half full when it comes to perspective, I still agree with Voltaire’s message of how the world is dystopian, cruel, and prone to chance and ungodly, undeserved circumstances. I believe it is naive to think that everything happens for a reason because of the measure of horrendous, undue suffering throughout the world. Many clouds may have a silver lining, yes, but several of them are solid black. I think in this case it is better to adapt a philosophy in the grey area, which is neither white nor black. Respectively, one does not have to be naive, but on the other hand, a self-undoing fatalistic attitude only perpetuates the negativity of evil and hardship. This is the concept of finding the mean, the middle ground, the virtue of balance.

Candide is run all around the world; over 20 chapters of the novella show him making most of his decisions in the interest of reuniting with Cunegonde. Even when Candide and his loyal servant and friend Cacambo visit the utopian land of Eldorado in which everything is perfect, blameless, and heavenly, they decide to leave out of boredom of that blissful repetition. So is it that humans enjoy the rollercoaster ride? Alfred Hitchcock did say, “Drama is life with the boring bits cut out.”

That said, again we find that to live the best life, there must be some balance; a mean. Candide proves that royalty and riches do not secure or provide protection from life’s worst blows, as evidenced by the tales of many characters and the fate of the Westphalia castledwellers. In addition, it was demonstrated in the idealistic world of Eldorado that wealth and nobility do not secure eternal bliss. On the other side, the constant negativity and cynical skepticism only serves to break one’s spirit.

Voltaire’s vision of the best life is at the mean of two extremes. Instead of being ignorantly blissful or deadeningly depressive, the best way to live one’s life is to adapt productive practicality without worrying about rationalizing and “making sense” of the world. As the novella comes to a close, Pangloss tries again to rationalize the world’s chain of events, citing Biblical and historical incidences where characters were plagued by suffering. Candide, finally come of his own, responds that he knows about all those, but “I also know that we must cultivate our garden” (Candide Ch. 30 p. 75).

That statement shows that Candide is content to live in the present moment, take care of the job at hand, and not worry about the future or try to philosophically understand or debate what happened in the past and why. Pangloss again tries to tell Candide that he would not be where he was that day without all events of the past leading him up to that specific moment. Again, Candide responds, “That is very well put, but we must cultivate our garden.” There is no need for him to question, revisit, or analyze the past and the path that led him to that moment. He acknowledges the world’s imperfection and realizes man cannot rationalize nor conquer it.

I believe that is a fair approach; I personally would adapt and apply that philosophy to my life, while taking it up just a notch on the ladder of temperament. I believe that there always is hope, and that individuals should always strive toward an idealistic life rather than resigning to the disappointments. There is hope—Candide was reunited with Cunegonde against all odds, for example—although things may not happen in the manner you expected, just as the woman Candide was fighting for turned out to be different from what he anticipated, if not the opposite.

Instead of labeling circumstances as good or bad, which is, at its basis, futile; it is best to accept what happens as a part of life, then act accordingly, making changes or working in a different manner. Working to give back and improve oneself and the world is really all that one can do; by being present in life and not rushing ahead or looking behind. It is a simple secret to living life the best you can: cultivate your garden.

Source: Adams, Robert M. (Ed./Trans.). (1966). Candide: Or Optimism. Voltaire.  New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

******************************************

Our Mother, Who Art in Heaven

A Critical Analysis of Feminist Theology:
Reintroducing the Woman to Scripture and Spirituality

New philosophies of the theology of God have radically changed the way the most supreme being is sought after. Since the beginning of time, people have marveled at the mystery of God, “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.”

Karl Rahner, a Catholic theologian, has written extensively about God as the essence of transcendence. Transcendental experience, according to him, is the conscious acknowledgment of the unlimited expanse of all possible reality—which is synonymous with the concept of God. Language in reference to God must first recognize that the sacred is seen through symbology, because it is impossible for any description of the concept of God to be all-encompassing or taken literally.

Who Is God?

God is sought after and understood through symbols. The name “God” in itself is a symbol, as are the infinite other description of the supreme being—Master, Most High, Jehovah, King of kings, the Universe, Light of the world, the numinous, the Rock, Zeus, Jupiter, Buddah, Allah. Abba, or Father, is probably one of the most recognizable names for God.

The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, or CARM, describes God as such:

In Christianity, God is a Trinity. This means that God is three persons, not three gods. Technically, the doctrine of the Trinity states that in the one God is the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each is not the same person as the other; yet there are not three gods but one…
…The reason the word “person” is used in describing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is because each exhibits attributes of personhood — not in a body of flesh and bones, but in personality.  In other words, each has a will, loves, speaks, is aware of others, communicates with others, etc.  These are attributes of personhood and we see the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each demonstrate these qualities.

Terms such as Light or Spirit or Holy One are not gender-specific, but God is generally seen as having male qualities or characteristics—Heavenly Father or King of Kings.  Although clearly not a human being, God has been presumed to be of the male persuasion, and to refer to God in a feminine way is not generally considered proper. Terms such as Heavenly Mother, or referring to God as “Mother Nature” or “She” instead of “He,” are seen as blasphemous.

On the website allaboutgod.com, the writers take a pretty definitive stance on God being male.

Who is God? What has He revealed about Himself? To begin with, whenever He refers to Himself in parental terms, He always addresses Himself as “Father,” never “Mother.” He calls Himself “a Father to Israel,”¹ and in one instance, when His “children” were particularly disrespectful to Him, He said to them, “A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am the Father, where is My honor? And if I am a Master, where is My reverence?” ² His prophets acknowledged Him as Father by saying, “You are our Father, we are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand,”³ and “do we not all have one Father? Has not one God created us?”⁴ Never once does God refer to Himself as “Mother” and never once is He called such by the prophets to whom He spoke. Calling God “Mother Nature” is comparable to calling your earthly father “Mom.”

Since the inception of Christianity, God has been considered masculine. Christianity, partnering with traditional Greek philosophies and continuing through the medieval period, influenced the language of the churches on the horizons of the modern era. The authors of the canonical Bible (the Old and New Testaments) were all men, and the societal roles of men and women at that time affected not only how the authors chose to portray women, but also how scripture was interpreted. “Religious imagery and social practice mutually influence each other, and the move to an all-male hierarchical priesthood necessitated exclusively male, ruling images for God.” (Johnson 1992, p. 173).

As women were “second-class citizens,” so their roles in the Bible have been manipulated and diminished to that of the lesser gender. “This tradition continues to shape contemporary language about God, both explicitly and implicitly, whether accepted or rejected, in popular and intellectual circles, particularly in its language about the Supreme Being, divine attributes, and trinitarian persons” (Johnson 1992, p. 9).

Feminist Theology Overview

Feminist theology seeks to change the classical view of women in regard to Christianity to a more modern approach that would be more acceptable by today’s standards.

Feminist theology, according to wikipedia.org, is

a movement, generally in Christianity and Judaism, to reconsider the traditions, practices, scriptures, and theologies of their religion from a feminist perspective…includ[ing] increasing the role of women among the clergy and religious authorities, reinterpreting male-dominated imagery and language about God, determining women’s place in relation to career and motherhood, and studying images of women in the religion’s sacred texts.

Feminists have attempted to counter perceptions of women as morally or spiritually inferior to men; as a source of sexual temptation; as dedicated to childbearing, their homes, and husbands; and as having a lesser role in religious ritual or leadership because of such inferiority or dedication.

Feminist theologians critically analyze inherited oppressions, search for alternative wisdom and suppressed history, and risk new interpretations of the tradition in conversation with women’s lives. When approaching God, it is preferable to speak about God in personal symbols—those that hold meaning and relation to the individual. “The range of experiences associated with a personal embodiment capable of physically bearing, delivering, and nourishing new life shapes women’s subjectivity in new ways (Johnson, 1992 p. 177).”

While seemingly logical, it has been difficult for the feminist approach to God to hold water with the traditional church. Pope John Paul said that there is to be no priestly ordination of women in the Catholic Church. Jesus’ twelve disciples (considered to be his closest friends) were men. Ancient texts written by women were excluded from the Bible. Eve committed the first sin and is widely considered to blame for the fall of mankind. Mary’s role as the mother of Jesus Christ is an argument used to promote the idea that woman’s most important role is that of motherhood. Leaders in a youth group I used to attend in high school told me that as a woman, I was to be submissive to men and my future husband, as that was the role God had created and intended for me. My issue was not so much with “gender roles,” but more so with the value judgment placed upon said roles and the inferiority that came with it.

The contrast between the traditional patriarchal discourse and countering female voices is stark, but must be discussed. Many theologians have written about these new frontiers in approaching the mystery of God and seeking the truth. In Countertraditions in the Bible, Ilana Pardes analyzes and explains numerous philosophies pertaining to women and the Bible, and compares and contrasts the different writers’ viewpoints. She examines these dialogues “by means of an interdisciplinary approach, relying on feminist theory, literary criticism, biblical scholarship, and psychoanalysis, setting these disciplines at times against each other in order to expose inevitable points of tension” (Pardes, 5). It is always important to consider the time and context in which certain statements are made, as any philosophy will inherently be influenced by its milieu.

Elizabeth A. Johnson, author of She Who Is, reflects on God in a way “that stands consciously in the company of all the world’s women” (Johnson, 1992 p. 8). She not only revisits scripture to be interpreted in a feminine way, but also insists on the usage of feminine language to describe God.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton edited The Woman’s Bible, a collection of commentary on passages in the Bible that pertain to women. There are over 20 women, including reverends, who contribute. The Woman’s Bible interprets scripture in such a way that women are glorified and lifted up, rather than put down as the cause of the fall of man, nor second-class, evil, wily, nor seductive.

The Creation of Humankind—Lost in Translation?

One of the most important Biblical passages in reference to women is in the opening pages of the Bible. Genesis, which means “the beginning,” tells the story of Creation, wherein all life came into existence. The subsequent fall into sin is also a key element that influences Western perceptions of femininity today.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them…and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over…every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Gen. 1:27-28). This declares that women and men were created simultaneously and equally balancing one another. They both had dominion over the earth, but the man was never explicitly given dominion over the woman.

Stanton says that the masculine and feminine elements “are as essential to the maintenance of the equilibrium of the universe as positive and negative electricity, the centripetal and centrifugal forges, the laws of attraction which bind together all we know of this planet whereon we dwell and of the system in which we revolve.”

Genesis 2:22-24 reads “And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, “This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.”

Commentary in The Woman’s Bible asserts that the book of Genesis has not one, but two accounts of human Creation in its first three chapters. Stanton explains that the different and contradictory accounts were written by two distinct authors. The original Jewish books were written on leather rolls, not divided into chapters or verses. The people who copied them often altered passages, and perhaps did not understand what it was they were copying. Stanton states that the two creation myths, written by different authors at different times, were copied on the same leather roll, hence the inconsistency. The original Hebrew writings of Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:4 is one account of creation written by an author who used the term “the gods” (or “Elohim”) 34 times. The author of Genesis 2:4 through the end of chapter 3 is stylistically written differently, using the term “Iahveh of the gods” (a tribal god of ancient Israel) 20 times, but “Elohim” only thrice. “The first author…attributes creation to a council of gods…the second attributes creation to Iahveh … represent[ing] Iahveh as one of two or more gods” (Stanton, 17).

In Hebrew, Genesis begins with saying “As to origin, created the gods these skies and this earth…and a wind moved upon the face of the waters.” English translators, who believed that the Hebrews were monotheistic, translated the same passage as such: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth…and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

The Elohistic and Iahoistic fables are different not only in language, but in the order of how all things came into being. The Woman’s Bible contrasts the two as follows.

In the Elohistic (Priestly) story, the order of Creation is: water, land, vegetation, animals, and mankind—male and female—both in the image of the gods, with joint dominion over the earth. Everything, without exception, is pronounced “very good.”

In the Iahoistic (also known as Yahwistic) story, the order of Creation is: land, water, the male, vegetation, animals, and finally the female as an afterthought. There is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and woman is punished with subjection to man for breaking a prohibitory law.

In response to the dualistic creation stories, E.B.D. writes “My own opinion is that the second story was manipulated by some Jew, in an endeavor to give ‘heavenly authority’ for requiring a woman to obey the man she married.” Furthermore, she believes that to say that woman is inferior to man because she was created after him is akin to saying that humans are inferior to animals because they were created after them.

Pardes briefly discusses The Woman’s Bible’s attacks on misogynistic Biblical passages in Countertraditions, and follows it with feminist writers who continued with and further expanded on Stanton’s limited philosophy. Simone de Beauvoir and Kate Millet wrote two of the first major works in feminist criticism—The Second Sex and Sexual Politics, respectively. Unlike Stanton, they do not seek to reinvent or form a new “rational religion” nor focus on more progressive passages.

Their objective is not to dismiss, but to view the existing texts in a different paradigm, interpreting passages in light of a feminist context.

Millet analyzes the story of creation in the Bible as siding with the reigning patriarchal views, placing the blame of the fall of man solely on woman’s shoulders. De Bouvoir, whose works discuss the Yahwistic text, sees the status of woman as “Other.” As woman was made from a part of man and created to rescue man from loneliness, woman is a “privileged prey.” The facts of the order of creation, woman’s origin, and man’s preference for her over everything else are actually set within an existential-feminist framework. She says that for the man, within the woman’s natural submission “lies the wondrous hopes to fulfill himself as a being by carnally possessing a being, but at the same time confirming his sense of freedom through the docility of a free person” (De Beauvoir, 1952, p 160).

Phyllis Trible, one of the founding mothers of the second wave of the feminist movement, applied literary theory to the Hebrew Bible rather than relying on English translations. She expands on the writings of scholars such as de Beauvoir and Millet, but also challenges the latter’s notion that “Patriarchy has God on its side.” She does not condemn nor dismiss the Bible, as rejection only begets the chauvinistic interpretations of the patriarchy. Rather, Trible urges a re-reading and re-interpreting of the Bible, stripping it of its sexist blinders and unearthing the glory of woman. Trible’s method is more complex and developed than the commentaries of Stanton.

Against Feminism

In a male-dominated society and following a long history of patriarchal control, feminist theologians aim to reinterpret the traditional views and practices of classic theology from a female perspective. Feminist theology mainly counters the perceptions of female inferiority in all regards.

The main arguments against that aim generally use biblical texts for support. Speaking the Christian God: The Holy Trinity and the Challenge of Feminism contains 18 authors who critically engage feminist thinkers and “offer constructive discussion of the crucial and often very complex theological issues… Most of the essays argue that male language for God cannot be changed to female language or augmented by female language without destroying the Christian faith” (Young). Three of the authors even go so far to say that to be a feminist is to remove oneself from Christianity.

Perhaps one of the strongest refuting arguments comes from the actual words of Christ. Jesus taught the disciples to pray, “Our Father, who art in heaven…” Not “Our Mother.” But does calling God “Father” make God a man? What about the Trinity? Christ referred to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  For many people, Christian or not, this constitutes viewing God in masculine terms rather than feminine.

Clearly, God does not have a gender. Until the creations of Adam and Eve, biblically speaking, there wasn’t sex. The fact is that God is neither male nor female, but would it be going against God’s will to refer to him otherwise, when God said (through Jesus) to call him “Our Father?”

The Christian website www.gotquestions.org sums up the anti-feminist thesis quite well:

While God is not a man, but is a Spirit, He chose a masculine form in order to reveal Himself to mankind. Likewise, Jesus Christ, who is constantly referred to with masculine titles, nouns, and pronouns, took a male form while He walked on the earth. The prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles of the New Testament refer to both God and Jesus Christ with masculine names and titles. God chose to be revealed in this form in order for man to more easily grasp who God is. To assert that God chose a female form to be revealed to man is not consistent with the pattern established by Scripture. Again, had God chosen a feminine form, there would be more evidence in Scripture of that. That evidence simply does not exist.

The Real Questions and the Bottom Line

I think the question that needs to be asked is: why does such evidence not exist? Referring back to the writings of people such as Stanton and Pardes, one must remember the context in which our canonical sciptures were written, translated, and chosen. There were countless ancient texts; many more than the 66 books of the Bible. However, it was the men who decided which of these texts would be used in the Bible—not God. Clearly, judging from women’s societal roles in that period of time, texts written by women (such as Mary’s gospel) would not be included. Stories about heroic women would be watered down. The story of who discovered Christ’s arising that one Sunday morning has been revised and edited to keep women in a certain place—and that place is not necessarily high in the Bible.

Also, one must keep in mind the circumstances under which Christ came to teach.  In his day, given the societal roles of women, a prophetess most likely would not have been taken seriously, no matter how enlightened she was.

Translations of the Bible also must certainly be kept in mind.  The Bible we read today is much different from the Hebrew texts it comes from. Deuteronomy 32:18 says, “You forgot the God who gave you birth” in The Revised Standard Edition. On her online blog at wonderingwanderingthoughts.blogspot.com, the author writes:

The Jerusalem Bible translates it as “You forgot the God who fathered you.” However, the verb used is ‘hul,’ which means to twist. It was used elsewhere in terms of dance movements or in ‘writhing in labor,’ which puts a distinctive feminine aspect on that sentence. That verb is something I can relate to, as it gives me a means to approach God not only as a Father, but as a Mother as well… The root word for compassion/mercy in Hebrew is ‘rechem,’ which means womb. The term for the spirit of God is a feminine one, which is ‘ruah.’

A comment in the abovementioned blog entry also brings some familiar input to the notion that old habits die hard:

“…when the movie Prince of Egypt came out…There was a bit of controversy because in the film, the voice of God was originally to have been a mixture or combination of many voices at once including men, children, rushing waters, and even *GASP* women!! My church even publicly condemned the movie before it came out. I thought using many voices was a beautiful idea for the voice of God, so I was a little disappointed when I saw the movie in the theater that they ended up using the standard and predictable Voice of a man… Charlton Heston’s I guess. I guess the movie had too much pressure to continue with the original plan.

In my quest for knowledge and spiritual enlightenment over the past couple years and especially this past semester, I have been learning what it means to ask questions and understand something for yourself, rather than blindly accepting what you’ve been told to believe. “The unexamined life is not worth living,” and I believe that goes for especially spirituality.

Growing up in a Christian household, with certain “images” of God and understandings of the Bible deeply rooted in my being, I can see why people are hesitant to embrace something different, lest they seem blasphemous. But as theologians are exploring new approaches in seeking to understand God, I must agree that the image of a static, unchanging God does not resonate with me any longer. I believe that the word “God” itself is limiting—the very nature of God includes omnipotence, omniscience and transcendence…but again, any description falls short.

Studying the origins of our Scriptures has also changed the way I interpret the Bible. While initially it was slightly disheartening to think about the foundations of my youth essentially being shattered, I realize that reaction is somewhat melodramatic. I still believe that much of the Bible is inspired by God. However, I keep in mind the fact that men who lived in a much different milieu than mine literally cut and pasted from ancient texts and made a decision on what to call Holy Scripture. Not to mention the many meanings of specific terms and phrases lost in translation over the years in addition to the discarded texts written by women. The fact that such evidence is gone is sad, but at the same time I think it’s beneficial. The fact that the Bible, the Word of God, can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways is enlightening, rather than restricting.    It doesn’t matter to me that Adam may or may not have been created first or whether or not Eve was drafted from one of his ribs. Furthermore, when Eve took the bite of the forbidden fruit and gave it to her husband, I read that as more of a courageous move—a quest for knowledge and wisdom—to be like God. I believe the story of the Garden of Eden, like many others in the Bible, is meant to be taken metaphorically.

So. Is God as we know it a male? No. Nor is God female. God is not any of these characteristics—God is the essence of all being. The Great I AM. God just is. That is actually quite liberating to know that the concept of God is not limited by our earthly descriptions.

Since no words we can use to describe God are ever good enough, I believe that using feminine language is truly necessary in order to incorporate women back into the image of God. Man and woman are both created in God’s image, but as God has no physical image, I believe it must refer to the characteristics and qualities of the Most High. And because both sexes are reflections of God, then God must embody characteristics of both sexes. When it comes to human beings, the individual’s mind and soul is much more important and eternal than the flesh and outward appearances, so it is fitting that our characteristics reflect God, and not our bodies. It’s our spirits that matter.

I am a spiritual being. However, in today’s context, I am wary of labeling myself as religious. As I continue on my journey of seeking God, I realize more and more how I am connected with the Universe and every thing in it. I do not believe in mere coincidences—synchronicity, for me, is a moment in time where the Universe reveals to me just how connected everything is. There is much more to life than what can be seen in this physical realm, and I believe the energy that is the Universe that is God shows itself to us on a daily basis. We may not hear the literal voice of God in burning bushes, but “random” events such as strangers making resounding remarks or numerous coincidences in a short period of time can be interpreted as spiritual revelation.

Considering the infinite differences individuals have, it makes sense that there is more than one way to reach what many call God. It would be boring and monotonous if the 6 billion inhabitants of the earth all took the same path in their spiritual development. Just as the qualities that make individuals unique are vast, so are the ways that people can seek God: the Light, Nurturer, Protector, and Ultimate Giver of Life.