Contents
Articles
- Mary, Protestantism and Capitalism, Michael Morton
- Guadalupe Tonantzin – 'Our Mother', Dinah Livingstone
- Kali Durga Sati Parvati, Ken Smith
- The Stain that Won't Wash Out: The Persistence of Religion in our Cultural Fabric, Penny Mawdsley
- Saving The Planet, Denis Gildea
- Spitalfields During London Open House Weekend, Cicely Herbert
Reviews
- Above Us Only Sky, Dominic Kirkham
- Report of the Sea of Faith Commission on Faith Schools, Edwin Salter
- 118 Days, Emily Johns
- Little Marvel and Other Stories, Alison McRobb
Poetry
- Refurbishment, Joy Howard
- Thirst, Barbara Cumbers
- The Home Coming, John Pearson
- Woodcut, Kevin Mills
Regulars and Occasionals
- Current Affair, Owl


Editorial
Mater – Materia This Christmas issue of Sofia has the title ‘Mother-Matter: Mater-Materia’, words which have the same Indo-European root.
Most ancient religions had both male and female deities.
For example, Ken Smith writes about the many-sided Indian mother goddess Kali. Michael Morton points out that as the Christian religion initially lacked a female deity, gradually Mary came to fill that role. She was proclaimed theotokos, ‘mother of God’ at the Council of Ephesus in 431 and was thereby ‘theologically transformed to became formally the Queen of Heaven (Regina Coeli) in the West and the All-Holy One (Panhagia) in the East. In other words she became divine, a goddess in all but name.’ In some cultures she was identified with earlier Earth Mother goddesses (in Mexico she was identified with the indigenous Tonantzin).
But curiously, at the Reformation, Mary was violently rejected. Her shrines, such as Our Lady of Grace at Walsingham, were smashed. Why was this?
Was it connected with the Protestant sola scriptura? In the Old Testament Yahweh abhors Canaanite fertility cults of gods and goddesses. In the New Testament Jesus addresses his God as ‘Father’. Could it be connected with the rise of capitalism (closely linked with Protestant ‘free enterprise’) , which involved a very ‘masculine’ attitude of exploiting and ‘subduing’ the Earth to profit from it? A reverence for the Earth as ‘our mother’ was lost. At its outset capitalism could in some ways be regarded as a progressive force, promoting individual liberty against feudal bondage. But now in the twenty-first century, unrestricted capitalism, whose engine is continual growth, is endangering the Earth, the planet, as well as indigenous peoples and animals.
And we can’t put away ‘our mother’ in a geriatric home and hope to inherit from her in due course. If she dies, we do.
Is the symbol of an earth-goddess ready for a revival? asks Morton at the end of his article. And at the end of his, Smith calls for ‘a public debate with Pagans and Hindus both of whom have a much stronger and clearer understanding of the feminine, a far more honest appreciation of the earthiness of Earth.’ If Mary is a sort of Mother goddess, why is she a virgin? In a patriarchal society a virgin wife guaranteed to a man that the child she bore was his. Even nowadays, the Prince of Wales who, we are told, at one time had two married mistresses on the go at once, was encouraged, probably even by them, to take a virgin bride. So perhaps a virgin mother of a divine child guaranteed that God was the father. Matthew puts Joseph’s viewpoint. When he discovered she was pregnant he resolved to ‘divorce her quietly’ until an angel told him not to. Luke puts Mary’s perspective. She asks the angel how she can become pregnant since she is a virgin. The angel replies in metaphorically sexual language: ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you’ so that your child will be called the Son of God. The Church’s obsession with virginity seems misplaced. By her ‘Fiat – so be it’ Mary consents to this ‘overshadowing’. The Advent liturgy has some beautiful sexual imagery, such as the Rorate caeli: ‘Skies drop down dew and clouds rain down the Just One; Earth, open and sprout a Saviour.’ In other religions gods often beget children from mortal women and not all the indigenous mother goddesses, with whom Mary is identified, are virgins. Far from it.
As well as smashing up Mary’s shrines and images, some types of Protestants abolished Christmas Day.
They did not want to celebrate the story of a mother giving birth to a marvellous child who would bring hope to the world. And I did wonder whether the practice of some sects of sitting in silence is another rebuke to women, who were often condemned and punished for talking too much, as ‘gossips’ and ‘scolds’, ducked in ponds, hunted as witches who cast spells… We are intelligent material beings, each of us made by a mother, not out of nothing but out of herself, her own flesh and blood. So let women be praised and respected, not as pale virgins shrouded in snow, but as mothers and, like the Earth, as active producers of all kinds of goods, including as mathematicians, mechanics, musicians, priests, presidents, and poets, as rational creatures. Let them not have wilful obstacles put in their way or be excluded from fields in which they could do good work,. And let the Earth be praised and respected, poetically represented as a goddess maybe, studied by science and looked after by good husbandry; we cannot do without this mother not just for a few months in the womb and a few at the breast, but ever. It remains for Sofia to wish all our readers a merry Christmas. editorial Mary,Protestantism and Capitalism Michael Morton looks at the Protestant suppression of Mary, the rise of capitalism and the state we are now in.
Sofia Letters Editor Ken Smith, Bridleways, Haling Grove, South Croydon CR2 6DQ letters@sofn.org.uk Darwin’s Deity I write with reference to Dominic Kirkham’s review of Science vs. Religion by Steve Fuller (Sofia 88). Those who wish to propose Darwinism as an alternative to religion may find themselves using selective evidence.
The Origin of Species is a rigorously scientific book; yet it also uses religious language, and in doing so assumes the acceptance of some religious beliefs. Let me take some examples from perhaps the core piece of Darwin’s argument, the meticulously reasoned passage dealing with the development of the eye. (Origin Ch.
VI: ‘Difficulties of the Theory’. Sub-section: ‘Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication’). Darwin is comparing the historic refinement of the telescope by astronomers with the natural evolution of the eye. ‘But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?’ Just as man made the telescope, in other words, a being (‘the Creator’) whose existence he assumes, rather than reasons, is responsible for the work of evolution which gave rise to the eye. But we have not the right to assume from this analogy (he says) that this Creator is restricted to using our powers of reasoning. On the contrary, we have to recognise that the Creator has millions of years at His disposal, since that is how the process of evolution works. ‘…may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to ones of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?’ Note that it is assumed, not argued, that the works of the Creator are, in general, superior to those of man.
What is actually being argued here is that the result of millions of years of refinement are better than can ever be achieved by human intellect and skill, in other words by science. One thing at least is clear, and that is that the results of evolution are included by Darwin in ‘the works of the Creator’.
In Darwin’s terms it is the Creator who deals in evolution. If he had believed that there was no Creator, why would he have used that term? This is the evidence of the text, and to say that Darwin is using poetic language, implying that he did not mean what he was saying, would, if one were being non-selective, cast doubt on much that is said in The Origin of Species. There is on the face of it every reason to suppose that Darwin was being as literal and sincere when he talks about the Creator as he was in the book as a whole. It is widely recognised in fact (though perhaps not by the more extreme modern Darwinists) that he did not abandon Christianity. It is conventional to suppose that such apparent lapses of integrity are gestures to his wife Emma’s sensibilities, or a deference to his own religious background. But this smacks of speciousness. Why, on the face of it, should it be supposed that Darwin was saying anything other than what he believed? Is he normally thought to be in the habit of doing so, within this overwhelmingly scientific and explicit work? And if not, why pick these bits as being exceptional? The awkward conclusion is that without some such strenuous exegesis it cannot be argued that Darwin proposes an antithesis between religion and evolution.
— Michael Senior
Dear Editor, I would like to say a big ‘thank you’ to Nicholas Smith for his letter in Sofia No. 89. I am now nearly 92, very deaf, I cannot walk far and am no longer allowed to drive, I do not now attend conferences but did so for many years and greatly enjoy reading all the literature that membership entitles me to.
I am reasonably intelligent but cannot find the words to get through to my children, grand-children and great grand-children of the difference between being human and being an animal. They do not need to hunt and gather their food. They do not have to worry about shelter or keeping warm and communication is easy.
All they think about is how to get enough money to buy fashionable clothes, to pass on their genes and buy ready-made meals.
Without being too pious, what have we to offer that they will listen to? Previous generations made many sacrifices to become human and I don’t want future generations to be less than human even if it means giving up instinctive abilities and reactions. There is still much that we do not know or understand but G.O.D. is no longer the accepted answer and dear old Darwin does not go far enough. The water has become very cloudy but how do we save the baby?
— Margaret Jeremiah, Upton, Norfolk