Images of Women in Religion - Christian Gnosticism and Buddhism - Essay Example

Images of Women in Religion: Christian Gnosticism and Buddhism Over the of history, women have been largely viewed as being inferior to men.Religion has largely contributed to perpetuating such stereotypes through the absence of female symbolism and the overflow of male epithets when referring to God. In the book, The Gnostic Gospels, Elaine Pagels asserts that such is the tendency in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, while also acknowledging that Gnosticism adored God as a male-female dyad. In Images of Women in Early Buddhism and Christian Gnosticism, Karen Lang also touches on the subject of female religious representation. Using Buddhist and Gnostic texts, the author sets forth the argument that despite gender differences in representation, the image of women recognized her potential for insight, wisdom, and divinity. Gnosticism and Buddhism sought to reconcile the differences between masculinity and femininity, recognizing that both were constitutive elements of God’s divinity. Elaine Pagels’ book focuses on analyzing the Gnostic gospels in an attempt to demonstrate that there was a Christian current that embraced God as both male and female. This current diverged significantly from Orthodox Christianity (modeled from Judaism) and converged with the beliefs and traditions of other Near East religions. In this vein, the proposition that God created humanity in his image, and that Eve sprang from Adam, were viewed by Gnostics as grounds for justifying that God was both male and female: “Since the Genesis account goes on to say that humanity was created ‘male and female’ (1:27), some concluded that the God in whose image we are made must also be both masculine and feminine–both Father and Mother” (Pagels 49-50). Through the analysis of Gnostic scriptures, the book seeks to explain the inclusion of women into religion and religious life. The absence of feminine symbolism in modern religious tradition is consistent with an orthodox stance specifically inclined to resist social and political transformations that took place in the second century and resulted in increased prominence of women in all activities of daily life, including religion. Karen Lang builds from the primordial belief that divinity knows no physical boundaries, including gender: “The early Buddhist and Christian Gnostic assumption that beings once were luminous, incorporeal, and asexual, and that this state of perfection can be regained, motivates their quest for enlightenment” (Lang 102). Buddhism and Gnosticism share the view that humanity’s fall from divine grace springs from earthly desires, such as lust. Women, historically linked with seduction and sexuality, were therefore viewed in Buddhist and Gnostic myths as impure. Female fertility paralleled the earth’s fruitfulness, “… for they associate the enjoyment of a woman’s sexuality with tasting the earth, or its fruits” (Lang 103). Human imperfection was described through the impurities of women’s bodies, but this was not exclusively meant for women, since both religions believed that all human bodies were impure and therefore imperfect. In both cases, owing to a preeminently egalitarian message with prospects for study, teaching and prominent leadership positions in the community, women were attracted to Buddhist and Gnostic communities. Through her article, Lang aims to clarify that religious tradition did not always discriminate against women. In analysis of the two sources, it soon becomes clear that they both converge on the importance of reconciling the concepts of masculinity and femininity in the context of religious belief. In a more general sense, it appears that by vindicating the divinity of femininity, an attempt is made to further the cause of female equality relative to men. Historically, one of the primary justifications for discriminating against women has been religion. Pagels argues that a break in religion starting during the second century, effectively ousted women and there were no more accounts of them taking priestly or prophetic roles within the orthodox churches: “While in earlier times Christian men and women sat together for worship, in the middle of the second century–precisely at the time of struggle with Gnostic Christians–orthodox communities began to adopt the synagogue custom, segregating women from men” (Pagels 63). This marked an effective division between the Orthodox and Gnostic Christians, but the truth remains that Scripture prior to the second century favored equality between men and women. While Pagels explores the images of women in religion by focusing exclusively on Christian Scripture, Lang moves on to relate Gnosticism with Buddhism. However, this is in parallel with the work of Pagels, insomuch as the similarities between both religious traditions speak of the very social and political (and even religious) transformations that Pagels speaks of as one of the primary reasons for the ousting of women from active leadership positions in religion. Through analysis of Buddhist and Gnostic texts, the argument was constructed that while the female body was vilified, wisdom was also feminine and it was precisely through an active exercise in wisdom that women could overcome the handicap of their corrupted body and attain enlightenment, thereby becoming effectively equal in divinity to men: “Both Buddhist and Gnostic scriptures speak of the power of insight/wisdom to transform material bondage into spiritual freedom… And both traditions describe insight/wisdom in feminine terms as a creative, nurturing mother” (Lang 102). If women had the ability to purify themselves and attain enlightenment, then they too were divine; this was a dangerous proposition for those interested in maintaining a status quo that discriminated against women and concentrated power in the hands of a powerful, male minority, which is precisely what Pagels suggests. Taking a more stylistic approach in comparing the manner in which these two authors craft their arguments, it is worth noting that they rely heavily on religious texts and even on declarations attributed to religious leaders. Lang explicitly refers to Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna and orthodox Christian writers, including Tertullian and Irenaeus. In each case, these individuals are specifically chosen because their work and declarations ratify the assertion that women had position of prominence and leadership in Christian communities, principally Gnostic communities. Similarly, Pagels mentions the declarations and writings of prominent Christian figures, such as Clement (Bishop of Rome), Justinus (Gnostic teacher), Tertullian, and Christian theologian Clement of Alexandria. As far as differences are concerned, it is important to highlight that although both authors seek to reconcile male and female divinity, they explore the subject from fundamentally different perspectives. Pagels focuses on the divergence between Orthodox Christianity and Gnosticism, whereas Lang seeks to highlight the similarities between Buddhism and (Gnostic) Christianity. While the former seeks to explain the reasons for Orthodox resistance to female equality, the latter demonstrates the similarities between Buddhism and Gnostic Christianity in relation to the role of women in religion, their misogynist appearance notwithstanding. “… the egalitarian message of Buddha and Christ contained in these scriptures that did not deny to women participation in the religious life…” (Lang 103). Taking a more historical approach to the subject, Pagels explains why Christianity, up to this day, belittles women relative to men under the argument that the Lord was a man (69). A careful study of the religious scripture reveals that both Gnostic Christianity and Buddhism effectively reconciled the differences between masculinity and femininity, thus recognizing them both as being equally divine. This is a message that persists in the works of both Elaine Pagels and Karen Lang; they both attempt to prove this statement, and they succeed by drawing primarily from prominent sources. However, it is also important to highlight that they both take fundamentally different approaches in proving their point. Pagels focuses more on social transformations; she takes a historical approach and complements religious texts with statements from contemporary scholars. On the other hand, Lang takes a more religious, a more philosophical approach to the subject, focusing exclusively on the religious texts and on the work of Buddhist and Christian philosophers and theologians. In the end, they both converge on the construction of an image of women that is essentially divine and as such equal in all respects to men. Orthodox Christians, on the other hand, still question the divinity of women and justify their opposition by claiming that God is a man. The presented analysis begs a broader question: how can society go about unifying criteria that acknowledges the divinity of women and allows them active participation in religious life? This is a complex question at the very least, but hopefully it will one day find a satisfactory solution, one that will recognize gender equality in the eyes of the Church, once and for all. Works Cited Lang, Karen C. “Images of Women in Early Buddhism and Christian Gnosticism.” Buddhist-Christian Studies, 2 (1982): 94-105. JStor. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. Pagels, Elaine. “God the Father/God the Mother.” The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. 48-69. Print. Read More