Radical Feminist Theology: From Protest to the Goddess

Constantin-Iulian Damian

PhD.Cand.
Faculty of Orthodox Theology,
“Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iaşi, ROMANIA

Abstract:
The feminist theology appeared initially as a reaction to the presumed
Christianity’s patriarchal character. While some feminist theologians tried to find
solutions to reform Christianity, others – the radical ones – have created a new religion
with its own divinity, doctrine and ethics. First, our purpose is to outline the directions
followed by the radical feminists from protest to a new deity, generally called the
Goddess, and from theology, regarded as a discourse concerning a masculine God, to
thealogy, a discourse concerning a feminine deity. Second, we want to highlight the
different ways in which the followers perceive this new deity supposed to be an
alternative to the Christian God considered inadequate for the self-development of the
contemporary woman. Finally, we point out the antichristian character that animates the
construction of this new deity, created “after the image and likeness of man”.

Keywords: Feminism, feminist theology, thealogy, Goddess movement

Although it came out at the middle of the 19th century, at the same
time with the first feminist wave, because of the inauspicious context of
the epoch (the conservatism, the cautious feminist politics centred on
socio-political, not religious women rights etc.) and poor representation, it
is considered that the feminist theology itself came into being at the and
of the 60s, once with the second wave of feminism. An ideological and
political favourable context, the acceptance of women as students and
teachers at the protestant theological schools, the ordination of women in
some Christian denominations, and the catholic-protestant ecumenism
that facilitated the access of the catholic women for studying in protestant
universities are few of the most important and prominent factors that
permitted the beginning of constructing a feminist theology. Hereby, in
the 80s, the feminist theology became the best-represented liberation
theology (see Radford Ruether 2000: 4-8).
172 Constantin-Iulian Damian

Initially, feminist theology intended to “redefine” the main

theological significances of God, humanity, man and woman, creation,
evil, and salvation in an egalitarian and non-sexist manner. Nevertheless,
starting with this “programme”, the feminist theology developed
unpredictable trajectories, becoming a kind of generic term for a wide
range of theological directions. While some of these remained loyal to the
traditional Christianity, others, on the contrary, adopted a virulent
antichristian discourse. Thus, we can distinguish two main “ideological
axes” or directions: the reformist and the radical feminist theology.
Feminists from the biblical tradition, who try to purify Christianity of
patriarchy from within, represent the first one. The latter, represented by
the radical feminist theologians, is a post-Christian and post-traditional
direction that affirms the irremovable sexist character of Christianity and
professes that the only solution is the replacing of the Christian male and
patriarchal God with a new deity, more suited for the women’s spirit.
In the next pages, we will try to underline, on the one hand, that this
new deity is born from protest against the presumed patriarchal
Christianity, constructive endeavour, and much imagination, and on the
other hand to briefly analyse the outcome of this process.

“If God is male, than the male is God”

The criticism of the traditional theology, of male hierarchical and
stereotypical influence on the concept of God, of the body/spirit,
finite/infinite, rational/non-rational dualisms, the questioning of
traditional authorities etc. (see Christ 2002: 82) are common features of
all feminist directions. Nevertheless, in the 70s, the feminist theologians
that adopted an obvious antichristian discourse tried to find alternatives.
Some of them rejected the male god and proposed an androgynous one;
some a goddess linked to women’s experiences, and some others a Great
Goddess (Shinn 1984: 181-182). In this article, we will discuss only the
last alternative and we will start from Mary Daly, the fist and the most
important feminist theologian who seriously and radically questioned the
possibility of woman’s salvation in the patriarchal Christianity.
Developing in the most radical grade Simone de Beauvoir’s opinion than
Christianity is responsible for the inferior, evil and biological status of the
woman (see De Beauvoir 1998: 120-121), Daly (1985: 14-18; see also
 Radical Feminist Theology: From Protest to the Goddess 173

Daly 1994) starts her critique arguing that Christianity is guilty for
projecting the societal patriarchal structures in heaven; in fact, human
beings contrived God according to their own image. This is why we have
the popular image of a He-God, a heavenly patriarch who punishes and
rewards at his own will as a king who rules his kingdom or as a father
who rules his family. This image confirms and legitimates the male-
dominated society, where woman is the victim. In accordance with the
syllogism “If God is male, than the male is God”, the husband dominates
his wife as God dominates His creation. Mary Daly (1985: 29-31)
militates in favour of breaking of Judeo-Christian idols as a new phase of
the feminist consciousness liberation process. She means the
dethronement of false ideas and symbols of God (masculine ones) that
still haunt the Christian prayers, hymns, sermons, and religious education.
Daly also means the dethronement of the God of explanations who
“serves sometimes as the legitimation of anomic occurrences such as the
suffering of a child” and “does not encourage commitment to the task of
analyzing and eradicating the social, economic, and psychological roots
of suffering”. The God of otherworldliness who rewords and punishes
after death should also be dismissed, together with the God who is the
judge of the sin “who confirms the rightness of the rules and roles of the
reigning [patriarchal] system”. Not even Jesus Christ escapes from Daly’s
iconoclasm. She operates a distinction between Jesus the person and
Christ the symbol. From her point of view, the man Jesus has a
charismatic and revelatory power, but the incarnation of the second
person of the Trinity as a unique male confirms male superiority. Christ,
as a symbol, is also oppressively used; although some theologians
interpreted it as “New Being”, Daly (1985: 72) considers that “it is most
improbable that under the conditions of patriarchy a male symbol can
function exclusively or adequately as bearer of New Being. Inevitably
such a symbol lends itself to reinforcement of the prevailing hierarchies,
even though there may be some ambivalence about this”. Daly’s
conclusion is that
A patriarchal divinity or his son is exactly not in a position to save
us [women] from the horrors of a patriarchal world. Does this mean, then,
that the women's movement points to, seeks, or in some way constitutes a
rival to ‘the Christ’? In its depth, because it contains a dynamic that
174 Constantin-Iulian Damian

drives beyond Christolatry, the women’s movement does point to, seek,
and constitute the primordial, always present, and future Antichrist. It
does this by breaking the Great Silence, rising up female pride, recovering
female history, healing and bringing into the open female presence.
(1985: 96)
The Antichrist is not necessary evil – as the patriarchal
Christolatrism presented him –, but he is the surge of consciousness, the
spiritual awakening, the Second Coming of women that will liberate Jesus
from the role of the saviour or, in her words, from the role of the
“mankind’s most illustrious scapegoat” (Daly 1985: 96). It is more than
obvious from these lines Mary Daly’s virulent antichristian attitude. From
her point of view, the feminist movement, which strikes at the source of
the societal dualism, represents “a growing threat to the plausibility of the
inadequate popular ‘God’ not so much by attacking ‘him’ as by leaving
‘him’ behind” (Daly 1985: 18). Yet Daly says almost nothing about the
divinity that should replace the He-God. Even she uses the term
“Goddess” (or “Great Goddess”), Daly (1985: 34) considers, without
rejecting it, that like the term “God”, it is a static term and represents
merely a replacement of the masculine noun with a feminine one.
However, the “Verb” or “Verb of Verbs” that she suggests as alternatives
to the Christian God (not only on linguistic level) seems to be too abstract
to be functional.
Some feminists soon adopted and developed this kind of approach,
constituting what we can generally call the radical wave of feminist
theologians. To summarize, in their opinion Christianity is responsible for
the Western dualism and for the identification of the “flesh, nature,
woman, and sexuality with the Devil and the forces of evil”. It is also
responsible for the delusion of poor, marginalized and oppressed with a
happy life in heaven and for the witch craze of the Middle Age and so on
(Starhawk 1990; cited in Clack 1999: 25-26; for reformist and radical
theologians tensions see Clack 2005: 250-261). In consequence,
Christianity is guilty of almost everything was wrong in the Western
civilization in the last 2000 years. This is why the radical feminists
consider that women cannot find anything good in Christianity or, as
Daphne Hampson (1996: 50; cited in Clack 1999: 27) remarks: “Why
anyone who calls herself (or himself) a feminist, who believes in human
 Radical Feminist Theology: From Protest to the Goddess 175

equality, should wish to hold to a patriarchal myth such as Christianity

must remain a matter for bafflement”.
The attacks were directed not only towards “patriarchal
Christianity”, but also towards reformist feminist. According to Naomi
Goldenberg, another radical feminist, Judaism and Christianity,
patriarchal religions par excellence, will finally disappear. This is the
reason why, considers Goldenberg (1979: 22), the reformist feminist
theology that remains stick to the Judeo-Christian tradition have no
chance; the only “salvation” is the total brake loose from this patriarchal
tradition because
Jesus Christ cannot symbolize the liberation of women. A culture
that maintains a masculine image for its highest divinity cannot allow its
women to experience themselves as the equals of its men. In order to
develop a theology of women's liberation, feminists have to leave Christ
and Bible behind them. Women have to stop denying the sexism that lies
at the root of the Jewish and Christian religions.

From Protest to the Goddess

Therefore, a deity vacuum that remained after the repudiation of
God had to be fulfilled. The radical feminists needed a very different
deity from the “male” Christian God, a feminine one. Daly did not agree
with the Goddess, but it seems that this feminine deity was the only
functional alternative. In 1979, Naomi Goldberg was already talking
about “the changing of the Gods” and the replacement of the Christian
God with the Goddess, an indication that the association between radical
feminist theology and the neo-pagan movement had been already realized.
Obviously, few factors and circumstances facilitated this association. In
the same period when Mary Daly was writing about the inextricably
patriarchal character of Christianity and the necessity for the women to
give up the Male-God, providing a critique of the established patriarchal
religion, the Hungarian refugee Zsuzsanna Budapest initiated Susan B.
Anthony Coven #1 in Los Angeles and published the lesbian-feminist
manifesto The Feminist Book of Lights and Shadows (1975), providing an
alternative symbol system and ritual practice calling upon women-
identified women to reclaim the ancient religion of the Goddess. The
publishing of the WomanSpirit magazine (1974) by the lesbian couple
176 Constantin-Iulian Damian

Ruth and Jean Mountaingrove provided a forum where women could

share their non-traditional spiritual experiences, visions, and rituals, many
of them affirming the cycles of the female body and an affinity between
women and nature. Finally, Marija Gimbutas, by publishing The Gods
and Goddesses of Old Europe unwittingly supplied a history through her
analysis of the symbolism of the Goddess in the religion of Palaeolithic
and Neolithic Old Europe (Christ 2002: 80).
We consider that the pre-existing witchcraft groups as Susan B.
Anthony Coven #1 and Wicca (especially Dianic Wicca) inspired and
substantially contributed at the birth of a new religion or rather a new
religious movement, generally called the Goddess movement that P. Reid-
Bowen (2007: 15) defines as:
[A]n umbrella term for a diverse array of spiritual orientations and
perspectives whose membership can generally be linked by a shared
reverence for female sacrality and goddesses (or a single Goddess) and an
associated interest in matriarchal or matrifocal cultures and societies.
The Goddess movement is the outcome of the meeting between
antichristian discourse of the radical feminists and the neo-pagan
feminine deity. However, this newborn religion needed a theology,
history, ethics, etc. to create its identity. As Reid-Bowen (2007: 15)
depicts, the most important activities of women from within Goddess
movement are the creation of “alternative goddess and woman-centred
spiritual orientations to the world (and/or recreating or re-connecting with
an ancient pre-patriarchal spirituality)”. In the next pages, we will insist
on the theology of the Goddess (or, more correctly, thealogy), a
constructive endeavour intended to give her an identity, and we will try to
underline few of the basic characteristics of this creative process.

Thealogy: imagination and constructiveness

Naomi Goldenberg proposed thealogy as an alternative term for the
theology of the Goddess, considering that the doctrine of the followers of
this feminine deity should not be called theology. “In Greek, theos” she
argues “is the word for a masculine god. Thea is the word for ‘goddess’
and is a more appropriate root for a term referring to theories of feminist
 Radical Feminist Theology: From Protest to the Goddess 177

witchcraft. The word theology has also come to be used almost

exclusively in regard to Christian godtalk” (Goldenberg 1979: 96).1
This essential characteristic of thealogy as a counter-weight to
Christian theology is also underlined by Carol Christ (Christ 2002: 79)
who considers that thealogy developed “in reaction to the limitations of
Christian and Jewish theologies”. The dualism of the traditional theology,
including transcendence-immanence and monotheism-polytheism does
not describe with accuracy the meaning of the Goddess. Thealogy should
develop alternative ways of thinking, alternative conceptual tools and
alternative methodologies to those that have been deployed by traditional
patriarchal theology (cited in Reid-Bowen 2007: 27).
Being a counterweight to the theology, thealogy rejects everything
that might associate it with the “male” way of doing theology. This
attitude is obvious in the issue of the method. Because of its fear of
contamination from patriarchal methodologies, thealogy searches its own
original method. However, such an approach is very difficult considering
the fact that theology already “monopolized” and “used” all traditional
research methods. In this situation, the appropriate tactic was Daly’s
“methodicide”. By associating methodology with patriarchy, (Mary Daly
called it “methodolatry”, considering the method one of the false gods of
theologians and philosophers) (1985: 11-12), in the same spirit of the
protest against patriarchy, thealogy repudiates any method. It is more
adequate for the feminist thealogical approach the “non-method”, a
position that permits, as we will see, an extraordinary flexibility (Reid-
Bowen 2007: 28-29).
By comparison with theological methodology, thealogy’s
expository, hermeneutical and constructive approaches – developed in
different degrees –, are radically different. First, thealogy does not engage
in exposition because it does not recognize any authoritative sacred text
or revelation, situation that makes commentary and exposition irrelevant.

1
In fact, the term “thealogy” was invented by the neo-pagan priest and writer
Isaac Bonewits in the middle of the 70s. He defines thealogy as “Intellectual
speculations concerning the nature of the Goddess and Her relations to the world in
general and humans in particular; rational explanations of religious doctrines, practices
and beliefs, which may or may not bear any connection to any religion as actually
conceived and practiced by the majority of its members” (1989: 268).
178 Constantin-Iulian Damian

About hermeneutics, things are different. Thealogians are engaged in a

wide-ranging and eclectic reading of religious narratives from across the
world, albeit they interpret them in a feminist way, characterized by the
suppression of the patriarchal elements and the emphasizing of the female
empowering ones (see Reid-Bowen 2007: 28-29, 32). Finally and the
most important, thealogy not only uses, as Reid Bowen considers, it is a
constructive endeavour.
Although Sallie McFague (1987: 35-36; cited in Reid-Bowen 2007:
37) speaks about theology as “an imaginative human construct”
considering that theology have to be pragmatic in its attitude towards
religious representations, metaphors, and models, and to be ready do
adapt to situations, times and visions of the world, this characteristic is
more appropriate to thealogy. Nevertheless, such a constructive
endeavour is much more present in thealogy than in traditional theology
for few reasons. First, in contrast with traditional religions, as mentioned
above, thealogy does not have a corpus of authoritative and sacred texts
(e.g. Torah, the Bible, the Koran) and consequently any thealogian have
complete freedom to “imagine” and “create”. Even it finds inspiration in a
variety of sources (the beliefs of pre-Christian Europe, Oriental,
Amerindian or African mythologies), as Carol Christ (1979) suggests,
“these traditions are filtered through modern women’s experiences.
Traditions of Goddesses’ subordination to Gods, for example, are
ignored. Ancient traditions are tapped selectively and eclectically, but
they are not considered authoritative for modern consciousness”. Second,
the only authority is the subjective experience of the woman. The same
thealogian argues:
Goddess thealogy often begins with an individual woman’s
dissatisfaction with the male imagery of biblical religion. Her experience
of the Goddess, which may have come to her through reading, dreams,
ritual, or meditation, becomes authoritative for her. She may then share
her experiences and ideas with friends, start or find a ritual group. (Christ
2002: 83)
Thealogy’s subjectiveness and eclecticism create enough room for
the manifestation of the “imaginative human construct”. Of course, such a
method – or rather “non-method” – has many advantages, starting with
 Radical Feminist Theology: From Protest to the Goddess 179

the capacity of being personalized by any follower and ending with the
continuous renewal and adaptation to the times.
180 Constantin-Iulian Damian

Inventing a mythology
Although this plurality and eclecticism appears to be beneficent, it
makes the Goddess an ambiguous deity and endangers her identity in the
religious field. This is why thealogy needs a footing. Therefore,
something interesting happens: thealogy appeals to mythology. Rejecting
all the myths as patriarchal and oppressive, thealogy had to invent a
gynocentric Goddess mythology which to be the footing, the starting
point, and a source of inspiration for Goddess feminists. Significantly, in
contrast with other mythologies, the myth of the Goddess does not ground
on a sacred text or tradition; instead, in the same imaginative spirit, it is
constructed from “a combination of intuition and historical research” (see
Christ 2002: 85). Obviously, intuition is much better represented than the
historical research. For instance, Monique Wittig’s recommendation
(apud Rountree: 56) is illustrative:
There was a time when you were not a slave, remember that. You
walked alone, full of laughter, you bathed bare-bellied. You say you have
lost all recollection of it, remember … You say there are no words to
describe this time, you say it does not exist. But remember. Make an
effort to remember. Or, failing that, invent.
Although, according to some theories, the Goddess has been the
central deity of the religions from the European continent since Upper
Palaeolithic (sometime 30,000 years ago), the majority of the theologians
are not so audacious; they limit Goddess’ “date of birth” to Neolithic
(about 10,000 B.C.). To summarise, thealogians affirm that before the
Indo-European people’s invasions, the agrarian society of Europe was a
matriarchal and matrifocal one, which venerated a feminine supreme deity
(the Goddess). Corroborating this information with the presumed
peaceful, non-violent and harmonious character of the Neolithic society,
thealogians conclude that the feminine deity and matriarchate lay at the
bedrock of an “earthly Paradise”. Nevertheless, violent, war-loving, and
patriarchal Indo-Europeans destroyed this perfect society and replaced the
feminine deity with their masculine warlike gods. Consequently, violence,
war, and oppression of the weak installed in a once peaceful Europe.
Afterwards, in the next millenniums, the cult of the Goddess (and
feminine deities in general) was the victim of persecutions and was
hushed up by the followers of the masculine deities. This process of
 Radical Feminist Theology: From Protest to the Goddess 181

driving away the Goddess from the scene ended with Theodosius the
Great, who destroyed the last strongholds of this time-honoured religion
(see Christ 2002: 80, 84-85; Rountree 2003: 56; Radford Ruether 1983:
47-52; Thornton 1999: 194-207).
Despite especially Marija Gimbutas’ archaeological documentation,
this theory is far from being accepted by the majority of scholars.
However, with this in mind, we can observe few interesting things. First,
thealogians do not seem to be very preoccupied with the scientific validity
of this contested theory. Apparently, they are not looking for irrefutable
historical proofs to attest the cult of the Goddess in prehistoric past, but
an anchor point from where to start in fabricating a religious system.
Second, this artificially created/imagined myth of origins obviously
maintains the antichristian characteristic depicted above. Thus, while the
Goddess/goddesses denote(s) peace, harmony, and kindness, the
masculine gods (especially the Christian God) imply war, violence,
aggression. Consequently, the modern Western culture, with all its
problems: greed, consumerism, wars, destruction of the nature etc., is the
outcome of patriarchy and especially of Christianity. The suggested
solution to all these problems is “simple”: the banishing of patriarchy and
Christianity and the return to the Goddess. Finally, this myth has a
missionary role if we bear in mind that this fallacious theory spreads
especially in the universities. Interpreting archaeological discoveries in
the feminist religious key (a process of “engendering archaeology”),
reputed academics and feminists as Marija Gimbutas transform Goddess
mythology in a scholarly discipline, contributing in this way, on one
hand, at creating a scientific image of this mythology, and on the other
hand at spreading a false knowledge into the wider culture (Thornton
1999: p. 179).
We may conclude that this fabricated gynocentric mythology has a
double role: it creates the footings of the Goddess feminism and
challenges the patriarchal myths proposing itself as an alternative.
Hereby, the “creation” of a mythology proves that imagination and
subjective constructivism are not enough to make a “religion” work and
even though the Goddess movement wants to be different, finally it needs
at least one set point.
182 Constantin-Iulian Damian

The Goddess: symbol and/or ontological reality?

The eclecticism and the emphasis on personal experience give
thealogy not only the constructive character, but they also represent a
wellspring of metaphors, images and symbols of the Goddess. We have
already mentioned the advantages of such an approach. Nevertheless,
there are some disadvantages. We mention only two of them: the
ambiguity of the concept of Goddess and its extreme subjective character,
reflected in the multitude of ways that its followers perceive this deity.
Thus, the Goddess has the capacity to adapt to any follower accordingly
to his/her needs and necessities, not vice versa. Therefore, for some the
Goddess is a relatively abstract concept that works only as an
“emancipatory metaphor” or as a symbol of the network of personal,
political or cosmic energies of all the living beings of the Universe. For
some others, the Goddess is the deity of the woman’s soul. Finally, many
consider that she is a real concrete feminine deity towards whom they can
pray and who intervenes in people’s lives (see Raphael 1999: 55-58).
Consequently, we distinguish two primary approaches to the
Goddess. The first one considers the Goddess a symbol or a metaphor
created to bolster up contemporary women’s progress and affirmation.
The second conceives the Goddess as an ontological reality, an actual
deity.
As a symbol, the Goddess is, first, the symbol of feminine power’s
legitimacy and beneficence, in contrast with the negative image that
women have in biblical religions, starting from the doctrine of the original
sin. Second, the Goddess validates the bodily experiences and life cycle
of women, including menstruation, motherhood, and menopause, and
restores the relation between man and environment, a relation destroyed
by the patriarchal religions. Thirdly, it represents a positive valuation of
the women’s willpower and energy, previously considered evil (see here
Eve’s sin). Carol Christ (1979) underlines that “[a] woman is encouraged
to know her will, to believe that her will is valid, and to believe that her
will can be achieved in the world, three powers traditionally denied to her
in patriarchy”. Finally, the Goddess is very important for the revaluation
of women’s bonds and heritage. The women’s bonds to each other (as
mothers, daughters, colleagues, sisters, lovers etc.) recover through the
Goddess their true value. Above all, the symbol of Goddess legitimates
 Radical Feminist Theology: From Protest to the Goddess 183

and underlies the feminist approach in the same way the symbol of God
legitimized the oppressive patriarchal attitude of the last millenniums (see
Christ 1979). In sum, the Goddess “is a collective symbol of women’s
needs, values, and experiences” and it seems that the Goddess is so
meaningful for women especially because she is female (Shinn 1984: 183,
185).
As we have already mentioned, such a perception of the Goddess
(as a symbol) has numerous advantages, but the most important is the fact
that when the “liberating” significance of the symbol will erode, a new
one, more congruent with the times, will easily replace it. However, not
all thealogians share the same opinion about the Goddess. For some of
them, the symbols, metaphors, and images of or about the Goddess are
related to a real existence of the Goddess as deity. Likewise, the Goddess
is not only an “opportunistic construct” or a psychological projection, but
also a real deity, with whom they relate (Reid-Bowen 2007: 36).
As an “ontological reality”, the Goddess has the same anti-
patriarchal and post-traditional character. If God is seen as transcendent,
spiritual, disembodied, rational, sovereign and male, the Goddess is
“transcendent and immanent, embodied, passionate, sexual, relational,
and female” (Coleman 2005: p. 236). In contradistinction to patriarchal
God, the Goddess is not an “exterior power”, from “outside” the world,
but she reflects the sacred power or essence from humanity and nature.
While thealogians consider the concept of “transcendental deity” as the
bequest of patriarchal monotheistic religions and associate it with an
extreme deism, the Goddess is considered immanent, but an immanence
that is identical with the intrinsic power of Earth, nature and humanity.
Hence, Earth is the body of the Goddess who grants, takes back and
regenerates life, an allegation that suggests pantheism.2 While the more
reserved thealogians prefer to interpret this as a panentheism, others

2
From thealogians point of view, Christianity is a hierarchical system, where
man serves God and nature serves man. Therefore, man can abuse nature as he wishes
and this is why Christianity is guilty for the desacralization of nature and, consequently,
for the contemporary ecological disaster. To this deism, thealogy opposes a quasi-
pantheistic perception of nature as body of the Goddess. Thus neither deity, nor human
beings are radically distinct from nature. The nature’s identification with the body of
Goddess is seen as the only way to resacralize the nature and to make man responsible
for nature (See Christ 2002: 81, 87, 89-90).
184 Constantin-Iulian Damian

consider the Goddess a pantheistic principle that rules out any form of
transcendence. Although it seems that those two standpoints are
contradictory, in thealogy they do not exclude each other (Salomonsen
2002: 145). Thealogians consider that the Goddess is beyond any
dualism, she is “and-and”, she is not the subject of the dichotomy “or-or”.
Likewise, the Goddess is at the same time the both extremities of any
polarity. As Carol Christ states, “she is rational and other than rational;
transcendent and immanent; light and dark; one and many” (2002: 88).
More than that, the Goddess is simultaneously manifested and hidden
deity (in the common sense of the term) and manifested and hidden other-
than-deity. Jone Salomonsen who, after she studied a witchcraft group
from San Francisco, succeeds in systematizing the anarchy of Goddess’s
significations makes this necessary distinction. Accordingly, as “other-
than-deity”, the Goddess is perceived as an “internal force”, “a metaphor
for the life-generating powers and for the principle of creation throughout
the universe”; as an “external force”, she is “an anthropomorphic symbol
believed to mediate and express divine action and being” (Salomonsen
2002: 146). More detailed, there are four aspects of Goddess: (1) as
manifest other-than-deity, she represents the principle of creation and is
immanent in all beings, a metaphor for the life-generating powers; (2) as
hidden other-than-deity, she is ultimate, indefinable mystery, “the silent
part of Deep Self”, and no symbol can represent her in this aspect; (3) as
hidden deity, she is the subject of naming, getting many names and
disguises and so she appears as plural goddesses; (4) finally, as manifest
deity, Goddess is virtually present in all beings and she and humans can
“meet, merge and become as one” (Salomosen 2002: 146-148; for other
exemplifications and field observations about how the Goddess is
perceived see Griffin 1995: esp. 40-46).
However, without a reference point (sacred text or tradition),
without a method and underlain only by imagination and creativity,
thealogy does not reach its purpose: to “create” a deity which to be a
viable alternative to the Christian God. The only certitude is that the
outcome, the Goddess, is completely different from the Christian God. As
Kristi Coleman (2005: 236) suggests:
 Radical Feminist Theology: From Protest to the Goddess 185

The substitution of Goddess in place of God is not a mere sex

change or 'God-in-a-skirt'. The contemporary notion of the Goddess, in
some sense is, in fact, a deconstruction of God. This at times leads to a
reductionistic claim that the concept is a mere reaction to the patriarchy.
The Goddess is never simply an inversion.

Conclusions
Through thealogy and Goddess, the radical feminist theology
succeeded in accomplishing the most wanted break from God and
Christianity. Nevertheless, despite all the systematizations, the Goddess
remains an ambiguous and strictly subjective principle. The thealogy’s
worldview, anthropology, ethics etc., all characterized by an antichristian
spirit, do not really succeed in creating a logic and coherent religious
system. In fact, thealogians created a deity in their own image.
For the History of religions, not the number of the follower makes
this new religion significant, but the fact that this movement is the result
of a constructive process started from radical reaction to Christianity,
continued with the searching of a new deity and with the effort to
historically legitimating it, and ended with a more or less coherent
doctrine.
From a Christian point of view, the “negotiation” and
“reconsidering” of God or, when needed, His repudiation in an artificially
created and circumstantial deity’s favour lead nowhere else than to
spiritual surrogates. Far from representing an alternative to Christianity,
the Goddess movement born from the radical feminist theology could not
outrank, despite all thealogians’ efforts, the statute and stage of a diffuse
spirituality, with syncretic practices and an uncertain doctrine. It does not
succeed more than placing itself in the vast field of contemporary neo-
paganism and alongside other diffuse spiritualities from under the
generous umbrella of New Age.

References:
Bonewits, Isaac. 1989 (first published in 1971). Real Magic: An Introductory Treatise on
the Basic Principles of Yellow Magic, Revisited Edition. York Beach: Weiser
Books.
Christ, Christ P. 1979 (first published in Heresies, no 8-13). Why Women Need the
Goddess. http://www.goddessariadne.org/ whywomenneedthegoddess.html.
186 Constantin-Iulian Damian

______ 2002. Feminist Theology as Post-Traditional Thealogy. In The Cambridge

Companion to Feminist Theology, ed. Susan Frank Parsons, 79-96. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Clack, Beverly. 1999. Thealogy and Theology: Mutually Exclusive or Creatively
Interdependent?. Feminist Theology 7, 1: 21-38.
______ 2005. Shaping Feminist Theology: A Pragmatic Approach?. Feminist Theology
13, 2: 249-264.
Coleman, Kristy S. 2005. Who’s Afraid of the Goddess Stuff?. Feminist Theology 13, 2:
217-237.
Daly, Mary. 1985 (first published in 1973). Beyond God the Father: Toward a
Philosophy of Women’s Liberation. Boston: Beacon Press.
______ 1994. The Spiritual Revolution: Women’s Liberation as Theological Re-
education. In Feminist Theological Ethics: A Reader, ed. Lois K. Daly, 121-
134. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press.
De Beauvoir, Simone. 1998. Al doilea sex, 1st volume. Trans. Diana Bolcu and Delia
Verdeş, Bucureşti: Editura Univers.
Goldenberg, Naomi R. 1979. Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of
Traditional Religions. Boston: Beacon Press.
Griffin, Wendy. 1995. The Embodied Goddess: Feminist Witchcraft and Female
Divinity. Sociology of Religion 56, 1: 35-48.
Hampson, Daphne. 1996. After Christianity. London: SCM Press.
McFague, Sally. 1987. Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age.
Philadelphia: Fortress.
Radford Ruether, Rosemary. 1983. Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology.
Boston: Beacon Press.
______ 2000. The Emergence of Christian Feminist Theology. In The Cambridge
Companion to Feminist Theology, ed. Susan Frank Parsons, 3-22. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Raphael, Melissa. 1999. Introducing Thealogy: Discourse on the Goddess. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press.
Reid-Bowen, Paul. 2007. Goddess as Nature: Towards a Philosophical Thealogy.
Burlington: Ashgate.
Rountree, Kathryn. 2003. Embracing the Witch and the Goddess: Feminist Ritual-
Makers in New Zealand. New York: Routledge.
Salomonsen, Jone. 2002. Enchanted Feminism: Ritual, Gender and Divinity among the
Reclaiming Witches of San Francisco. London: Routledge.
Shinn, Larry D. 1984. The Goddess: Theological Sign or Religious Symbol?. Numen 31,
2: 175-198.
Starhawk. 1990. Dreaming the Dark. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Thornton, Bruce S. 1999. Plagues of the Mind: The New Epidemic of False Knowledge.
Wilmington: ISI Books.