Wednesday, 6 March 2024

Who is Sophia? What is She?

 Modernity was largely born out of the Reformation. This was the manifestation in the religious domain, which up to that point had always been the primary domain, of the new consciousness, one with a greater focus on self, the rational mind and the merely human. It was a step forward because it increased our powers of agency and self-determination. It moved us from a largely passive to an increasingly active mode of participation in the world. This brought many advantages but also many problems because human beings, first in the vanguard and then more or less everyone, were no longer directed by an external authority rooted in the real (cf. the instinctive nature of the animal kingdom) but by their own selves, and those selves were, and still are, limited by and to the phenomenal world of sensory experience, though for some journeys into the realm of abstract thought were possible. But even these were largely restricted by the nature of thought centred on itself. Greater freedom and creativity became open to us but the price was the loss of connection to everything that is summed up in the word 'God'. Our horizons became extended but our vision contracted. You might say we saw further along the East/West axis but as a consequence the North/South axis collapsed. And yet this was absolutely necessary if we were to advance from the state of a being embedded in creation to one able to move out of that and manipulate creation ourselves. This was once again eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and it meant we could become gods, if we did this with full recognition of the will of God and in line with his natural and spiritual order, or, failing that and acting according to our own will and its own ends and glorification, devils.

With the Reformation and its rejection of authority the seeds were sown for every man to become his own pope. Eventually every man should be his own pope but the pope is subject to God and if every man becomes not his own pope but his own god then you have crossed the line from saint to demon. That line can be thin sometimes and unfortunately it does seem that humanity as a whole has not succeeded in avoiding it at the present time. We are called to be individual but not individualistic. We are called to be gods in creation, able in the fullness of time to create worlds ourselves, but never to be our own gods. A god must serve the will of God or he becomes a devil.

The Protestant Reformation created the modern world which is why the main drivers of modernity, until its corruption, were those countries in which that ethos was most fully embedded. The spirit of the times was everywhere and that spirit created outcomes in most places but still the Protestant countries were at the centre of it all. One of the defining characteristics of Protestantism was its rejection, either overtly or in effect, of the supernatural. While this meant it could focus its energies more fully on the material plane as was intended by the powers that be, in the short term anyway, it also meant it became spiritually dry and unfulfilling. Religion without the supernatural becomes legalistic and limited to morality. It has no real life or colour or flavour or joy or mystery or power to uplift and inspire. It's an arranged marriage rather than one founded on love. Protestantism also demoted the Mother of God to just a mother. It lost touch with the Divine Feminine.

When the Romantic movement arose at the end of the 18th century, as a reaction against the rationalistic spirit of the Enlightenment and the reassertion of imagination, poets, artists, writers and philosophers rediscovered the Divine Feminine. This might be identified as the soul of things as God the Father is the spirit. It is associated with beauty, mystery and love as opposed to will, life and being. It is also associated with wisdom and in this aspect the Divine Feminine is identified as Sophia.

Sophia is the Divine Feminine in her most elevated mode of being. According to some she actually incarnated in the Virgin Mary. A debate has long been whether she is created or uncreated with some theorists equating her with the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. This might seem logical were it not for the fact that it contradicts scripture which describes her as a created feminine image of God. The very first created being but still a created being. In beautiful language chapter 8 of Proverbs extols her thus: 

"The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works before his deeds of old; 

I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be.

When there were no watery depths, I was given birth, when there were no springs overflowing with water;

before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,

before he made the world or its fields or any of the dust of the earth.

I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,

when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command,
 and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

Then I was constantly at his side.
 I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,

rejoicing in his whole world
 and delighting in mankind."


The apocryphal Book of Wisdom in chapter 7 supports this when it says of Sophia that: "She is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness."


These Old Testament quotes can be taken as authoritative or not. They certainly have a poetic truth. However, part of the modern mindset when applied to the spiritual quest is that nothing can be taken as unquestionable just on say so. We must always use our own intelligence and intuition though making sure it is intuition and not wishful thinking. But associating the Divine Feminine with the third person of the Trinity goes against the fundamental Christian teaching that Mary, who is the embodiment of Sophia and the Divine Feminine, conceived Jesus by power of the Holy Spirit.


One can see why the Protestant suppression of the Divine Feminine might cause her to come back in unbalanced or exaggerated forms, action and reaction etc, but still one should know that there is a feminine dimension to divine reality without going to the extreme of feminising God as making the Holy Spirit feminine does do. Seeing Sophia as the first of the Lord's works gives us a clue as to where the Divine Feminine might arise but she is not just the first created being. She is the actual foundation principle of creation. As substance and even space she is the Universal Mother and World Soul who receives the image of God and who ultimately becomes the Heavenly Bride or Divine Spouse. She must arise before anything can be created because everything is created out of her body.


Going back to her source, she could be said to derive from the receptive nature of God which arises when the positive principle of pure act takes expression as its complementary opposite, creation necessarily being founded on duality since a world of subject alone cannot be known. You cannot say she comes after the male principle since the two must arise together as one suggests the other, but she is a reflection of God (as Wisdom says) once God moves into creative/dualistic mode from his original uncreated form, the Ain Soph or hidden God that is at the back of and beyond everything. This is why she is, as Mary, her incarnation in human form, says, submissive to God. Her will is to do his will not the other way around for although the two arise together in time, they arise out of his pre-temporal being. 


I think this insight would resolve the difficulty with feminism which is right to see the feminine as integral to divine reality, there from the very beginning as in "let us make man in our image" i.e. male and female, but fails to see there is still a hierarchical distinction. Sophia is the very first of everything but she still comes from God, created as his Divine Consort.


From God the Creator comes before anything else Sophia who is the light and glory of God and who comes into being when He expresses Himself in creation. She is the mirror in which He sees himself. She becomes His Bride and could even be said to the primary reason for creation because in herself she sums up and includes the whole of creation as it is in relation to God. At the end of days when all is accomplished, she will sit in glory alongside Him on His heavenly throne, created by God out of Himself but now by His great love made equal to Him.




I have used this image before on this blog because it contains so much. It comes from Robert Fludd's History of the Two Worlds (Macrocosm and Microcosm) and can be interpreted in various ways. In the context of this post it shows Sophia as Queen of Creation. She presides over all the created worlds, outer and inner, shown by the concentric circles but is linked by the chain attached to her right hand to the hand of God who is hidden in the cloud above the circle of angels. The image shows the relationship of God to Sophia and Sophia to the universe. He is the Creator, she the Creation.


10 comments:

  1. Thank you William for writing on such an important subject.

    The future of Christianity will increasingly depend on an understanding of Sophia.

    Historically the question has been deflected by equating the Bride of Christ with the Church. Or sometimes simply by considering Sophia and Christ to be the same being.

    But Valentin Tomberg has given us the possibility of new understanding with his exposition of the Feminine Trinity.

    The Mother
    The Daughter
    the Holy Soul

    Just as the Masculine Trinity is no simple matter, so it is with the Feminine Trinity.

    But I think a good start is made by saying that Sophia, like Christ, is God-born, not created. Sophia is the Wisdom of Creation. She is the Divine Feminine counterpart of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Moonsphere. I've often criticised feminism on this blog and I shall continue to do so because it is hugely destructive and sits at the heart of the modernist error. But the fact is that it is a distortion of truth not an outright lie. It seeks to make of the sexes two suns whereas they are the sun and the moon. I think that the Biblical passages I've quoted contain profound truths about the spiritual reality of the Divine Feminine as does the Fludd image.

    By the way, is that Tomberg exposition in Meditations on the Tarot? That's the only work of his I've read and I don't recall it there but it is while since I've read it. Would you recommend anything else by him?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The 19th Arcanum (The Sun) in The Meditations on the Tarot contains an exposition, including a diagram of the two Trinities superimposed into a single hexagram.

    As you might know, Tomberg's other writings were not published as books, rather we have various transcribed lectures and other writings of his which have been compiled by other individuals - not least Robert Powell the translator of MotT, who has done more than anyone to rescue Tomberg from obscurity. I can recommend all of these!

    But the Tomberg book I would recommend above all others is titled "Christ and Sophia". The title alone may seem to be a perfect answer to your request! However, this book largely consists of Tomberg's Meditations on the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Book of Revelation. These 1933 meditations were available in separate pamphlet form but they are expensive and difficult to get hold of, so this book is the perfect way to access them.

    In the last few years, I have probably revisited this book more than any other. It might not answer every question relating to Sophia per se, but it provides a foundation of truth for such a quest, like no other which I have found.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks. I see a comment on Amazon says "There isn't much about "Sophia" in this early (pre-Catholic) work of Tomberg's, written when he was still a member of the Anthroposophical Society" which is what you also imply but I might investigate it anyway given your recommendation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you William,

    The late Christopher Bamford writes a lengthy introduction to the book, including a very good biography of Valentin Tomberg which adds even more value to this book.

    Within that introduction, he addresses the matter of the book title as follows:

    "We have chosen the overall title Christ and Sophia to encompass Tomberg’s whole Anthroposophic-Christological endeavor. For Tomberg, these two spiritual beings underlie and determine his entire creative work, as indeed they do the whole of creation itself. In a way, Tomberg’s universe is quite simple. It reflects the mutual interdependency and simultaneous coexistence in eternity and time of four elements that seek to become one through human beings: the Godhead, the Trinity, the nine angelic hierarchies, and the divine holy being, Sophia, she who unites all through knowledge and participation in all. Sophia, the ground of knowing and of the union of all with all, is thus also the servant of all."

    I do hope that you take up this recommendation, William - certainly you will not find any re-heated anthroposophy within its pages - but rather a series of extraordinarily insightful meditations into the Trinity that perhaps only Tomberg was capable of.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Mr.Wildblood,
    "divine feminity" is one of the most spiritually dangerous phrases; because it can imply that either God can be feminine; or that female can be divine in the same sense God is divine.

    But neither of these are possible; for the simple reason that female, at the core, is always derived from male (see Genesis). Therefore, female can never be self-standing, independent, in the same way God is independent. Female is always derivation of male. God is always male. (Just as moon is derivation of the sun, it never produces its own light, to borrow your metaphor).

    Therefore, if somebody say "divine feminity" and means it, he is consciously or unconsciously spitting into God's face. And such things seldom go unpunished.

    Regards,
    Lao'C

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christopher Yeniver19 March 2024 at 21:36

      Who cares what God is or what God does?

      As men, can we unify with women?

      Delete
  7. I see what you mean, Lao'C and I more or less agree. In fact, I've written quite a lot on this theme. Eve was taken from Adam rather than the other way around and, metaphysically speaking, the feminine is a reflection/projection of the masculine (cf. spirit and matter) rather than the other way around. It is only a materialistic age which could deny that.

    On the other hand, I do think there is such a thing as the divine feminine which is the outcome of God creating the universe and which is conceptualised as His Bride in creation. But we have to understand this is subsidiary to God as in the image I have included in the post.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Who cares? It's essential to understand what God is and what he does. If we don't we are on the wrong path, a fantasy of our own imagining.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christopher Yeniver21 March 2024 at 22:07

      Perhaps I can only see it as a matter of acting well, and not a matter of pure contemplation. I certainly have not refined my words to represent my actions - easier done than said is my favorite spin on an adage - while I do regard many mystics with respect, Meister Eckhart for example, who do not deviate into ecstacies, or the phenomenon of contemplation which lack decisive experiences leading to realizations. One must realize in themselves that which is close to God. It is sufficient to describe it all as a mystery, but one knows their interior life or can come to that point.

      Delete