Naming re-imagined: "It is good."

In the 1st chapter of Genesis, the first creation story, God co-missions Adam and Eve to subdue and rule over all they see around them; in effect, to name - to define and call forth all that is. Naming is hugely significant; in such we define our reality, clarify ourselves in relation to people and things, and come to understand our place in the world. In the first creation story this ruling, this naming, was a co-mandate, a privileged task given to Adam and Eve. God understood the importance of naming; it would not only give meaning, definition, and character to all that, but would enable them to give the same to each other and even to themselves. In naming we come to see ourselves as distinct, differentiated individuals.

In the 2nd chapter of Genesis, the second creation story, Adam is alone when the commission to name is given. As he names he discovers none like himself, “no suitable helpmate,” and Eve is then created. And even after her advent into Eden, Adam’s exclusive naming continues: he names her. In the second creation story, Eve’s meaning, definition, and character is determined by Adam. Woman does not take part in defining reality. Because she does not name, she cannot (nor can Adam) see her as distinct and differentiated. She is defined by her name-er. Not surprisingly, it is this second story that has permeated our theology. This loss of co-naming has perpetuated a reality that women have not defined, but instead have been defined by.

I could go into great detail about why this occurred, the cultural realities through the ages that created a hierarchy of order placing man at the top, then women, children, animals, and finally, the earth at the very bottom. But this space is not for that critique. Instead, what I’d rather consider is what might happen if we re-imagined a created world in which a woman’s naming is a given, is assumed, is requested and sought; where a woman’s naming creates meaning, definition, and character not only for the reality in which we live, but for ourselves.

Before I go further, let me state how important it is that we not only understand, but also not abandon the second story. It has its own element of “naming.” In it we can recognize and define what has been lost with the absence of a woman’s mandate to co-name. In many ways, we regain that voice by reading this story anew and seeing clearly the way it’s been misunderstood and misused; by naming that this trajectory began in our very first story (within the Judeo-Christian tradition), our earliest embedded memories, the beginning of the beginning; by re-naming it in ways that offer it and all of humanity a re-entry into Eden.

To name is to define and shape reality. For eons women have accepted male naming as a given, especially in the spiritual realm. The fact is, for a long time now men have been naming the world, God, sacred reality, and even women from their own masculine perspective and experience and then calling it universal experience. As a feminist culture critic, Elizabeth Dodson Gray points out, this naming tended to benefit men’s needs and concerns and in lots of cases to oppress women. Was it such a wild thought that women might start naming God, sacred reality, and their own lives themselves? (The Dance of the Dissident Daughter, Sue Monk Kidd)

There is opportunity here to re-create, to re-enter Eden, to re-tell the story, and to re-name not only ourselves but the God with whom we walk(ed) in the cool of the day.

Eve walked through the garden with Adam and saw what he did – for the first time. She was not escorted, her arm held politely, with Adam introducing, informing, teaching, or shepherding her through all lay before them. No. She walked freely, humbly, authoritatively, with awe, intuition, and primal knowledge flowing from her. All that surrounded was hers, theirs, equally. Everything to “rule and subdue,” to name was hers, theirs, equally. Together, equally, woman and man walked through the Garden; side by side, in unison, in mutuality, in freedom and joy, in shared and differentiated relationship with God.

Did they have disagreements about what to name a particular animal or plant? Did they cast lots to make the final call? Did they take turns? Did Adam’s choice have the most weight? Or did they just know and trust one another and the beauty and extravagance within which they walked – enough to hear, see, and name with complete acceptance?

We must re-imagine in this way…and then some. We must consider anew and with great creativity how these scenes might be re-envisioned and re-named again and again. We’ve heard these stories for thousands of years, and nearly always the same way. We must re-tell them and re-place ourselves within them – not as we’ve been told, as has been assumed, but as we only dare to dream. And then we must let the tapes roll forward, re-playing each and every scene and narrative that follows, recognizing that everything begins to change within and because of this first story.

To understand why the Eden story is so important we have to remember the extraordinary way origin myths operate in our psyches. In a way humans are not made of skin and bone as much as we’re made of stories. The Eden myth perhaps more than any other floats in our cells, informing our vision of ourselves and the world. (The Dance of the Dissident Daughter, Sue Monk Kidd)

And for me, the ramifications are vaster and more profound than I can possibly contain within this post. The power to name changes everything – past, present, and future. Though this is a blanket statement, women through the ages have had everything named for them. Their reality has been defined outside their own power or influence. There has been little to no distinction of women apart from men and the pursuit (or even intimation) of such has been wracked with tension and pain from the beginning. Yes, more and more frequently we now seek and even find such, but often at great cost, great pain, and great un-naming of all that we had once known.

What if we claim the first creation story as our own and step boldly into what God offered, invited, and intended in these earliest of texts? How might we name and define ourselves? How might we name and define our worlds? And how might we name and define our god(s)? Undoubtedly, in all three of these realms, new naming (and perhaps even re-calling names that have only been whispered by brave women through the ages) would occur.

The limits of space and time press on me – already, just over 1000 words in. The desire to name even what this post summons in me is powerful. If unlimited and truly free to name at will all of creation, I would be unbridled, untamed, unlimited. I would go back through every story – from Genesis to Revelation – and re-name what I’ve been told (and what my daughters have been told) in new, redemptive, powerful, and transformative ways. (That is, in large part what this blog site is for!) I would go back through every one of my own stories – from birth to today, at 47 years old – and re-name what I’ve experienced in new, truth-filled, un-censored, beautiful, and freedom-filled ways. I would listen to the stories of countless women, those I know and millions around the world – and celebrate wildly as they boldly and authoritatively re-name themselves, their worlds, their god(s).

I must stop, at least for now, knowing that the thrill, privilege, and responsibility of much re-naming and re-imagining remains in posts yet to follow. For now, here’s what I ask you (and myself) to consider:

What has been lost in accepting the 2nd creation story as the sense-making/reality-naming one?

How do I now re-create a world in which the 1st creation story is at least an equally abiding template through which I understand my role, my importance, my relation to men, my value to God?

Where have I accepted the names I’ve been given, the names that have been given to my reality?

Can I begin to imagine the name I’d give myself if it was up to me?

Can I begin to imagine a god that I have named from my own perspective, experience, and reality vs. a god that has been imaged, understood, and experienced through nearly exclusive naming by men?

Here’s a start…

Genesis 1: 27 So God created humankind in her own image, in the image of God she created them; female and male she created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. [Name what you see and experience!] Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 God saw all that she had made, and it was very good.

Will you name? The privilege, opportunity, and power is yours and mine. Imagine it! It is very good!

Women will starve in
silence until new stories
are created which confer
on them the power of
naming themselves.
Sarah Gilbert & Susan Gubar

Next up: Genesis 3 and the possiblity of re-imagining the serpent, The Fall, the woman...