no religion is static

In her The Religious Imagination of American Women, Mary Farrell Bednarowski focuses on five main themes that all connect to the ability of women (and men, as we will see) to adjust religion to better fit their lives, and for religion to adjust to better fit the lives of these women and also men. The five themes are ambivalence toward religion, an emphasis on immanence of the sacred, the ordinary as revelatory, reality as relational, and healing as a primary function of religion. Each of these, in turn, shows adjustment on the part of both the participants of a religion (not just women, though that is Bednarowski’s focus) and the religious institution, proving that no religion is static or it would not hold onto its practitioners.

Firstly, Bednarowski writes about ambivalence toward religion, a sense that strict adherence to a strict reading of the religion’s original doctrine is not only unnecessary, but actually an impediment to keeping some followers, especially women who traditionally were left to the sidelines, defined explicitly or reading implicitly that they are the “other.” She calls this ambivalence “creative and increasingly cultivated” meaning that there is a creative process to this lack of strong feeling toward the religion; specifically, this would lead to new ideas and perspectives about the religion. These new ideas can, over time, lead to new traditions, new rituals and even new beliefs, transforming the religion into something more befitting these ambivalent followers’ lives. The key here is that religion, however set in stone—literally, in some cases, obviously—the rules may be, is not static. It is not unchangeable.

Of course, the old traditions focus quite a bit on men and dictate quite specifically how to live, in public or in private. But, where the official form of the religion might have a strict tone, might have its omniscient, omnipotent monarch of a God ruling with a firm hand from his far off throne, the folk form of the religion, that is that form of religion that the average person—or, specifically women—practice in their normal lives has to make some leeway for reality. This is actually easier to do if the divine is taken as being more immanent than transcendent, hence the emphasis on immanence being Bednarowski’s second theme. If God is seen as being more down-to-earth, more practical, if the sacred is here with us instead of far off in a distant heaven, then it can change with us, can be as fluid as the seasons and the years will demand and/or allow. By the official, traditional Theist standard, with God transcendent, existing above and beyond his creation, it is far too easy for manmade restrictions and prejudices to be placed upon him, for—since we’re using Bednarowski here, we will again use women—sexist standards and gender-oriented spheres of life to be taken not as some human construct but to be attributed to this far off deity, to be taken as rigid as the ten commandments set in stone. So, it comes to women—and anyone else left on the margins—to look to God with ambivalence and see him as immanent, closer to earth, more accessible.

Additionally, these women will see the ordinary as revelatory, see the sacred in everyday existence. Of course, with traditional gender roles, what other option do religious women have? If a woman is kept to the home, kept subservient to her father or her husband, then her entire experience in the everyday will be with the ordinary. If she does not see revelation therein, then she will not hold to her religion. But, as there is comfort in keeping the religion, such a woman can take her ambivalence and her immanent God and see the light of her beliefs in any ordinary chore, in any order sight, in each and every ordinary day.

After all of this, and because of all this, there will be a sense, outside the strict confines of rigid religious doctrine of a reality that is more flexible, one in which men are not the center of everything… or perhaps, that the center of everything is not where the men are, or think they are. Religious women, according to Bednarowski, see reality as relational, consisting of relationships, putting emphasis not on individual autonomy but on group effort, on common bonds among the community. Bednarowski quotes Plaskow saying that “being part of a community with its own history, convictions, customs, and values can add richness and meaning to life” (Bednarowski 19), and this richness and meaning is even more important to these women who value the community more than the individual. Additionally, Bednarowski suggests that “God is present—immanent—in community and is experienced in community” (66). And community is built on relationships, not on individuals acting for individual aims.

Finally—and this one, at least with the major religions, would fit better with Bednarowski’s women than just any religious follower—Bednarowski argues that the primary function of religion is, or at least should be, healing. While the major religions do recognize human suffering, they treat it as punishment or testing by God, or see suffering as a problem with the point of view of the sufferer. Bednarowski suggests that religious women see it differently, that they see religion as being instrumental—or at least inherently capable of being so—in helping people heal, spiritually, psychologically, even physically. Religion exists to explain the universe to followers, to put order onto a chaotic existence. If religion cannot help to lessen or thwart suffering, then religion fails in maintaining such order. While religious men might agree with suffering being a just, karmic punishment, or a test from God, or a problem with perspective, religious women, with their ambivalence, their emphasis on the immanent, earthbound God, and their relational reality, will see it differently, will see suffering as unnecessary. And, for these women, religion is a tool for healing.