Institute for Thealogy & Deasophy

Goddess thealogy and deasophy can be considered fields that are concerned with the past and contemporary Goddess community's beliefs, wisdom, embodied practices, questions, and values. Both thealogy and deasophy, or more accurately thealogies and deasophies, constitute newly burgeoning mediums of feminist praxis within the Goddess spirituality and feminist spirituality movements in recent decades. In the late 1970's, many Christian feminist theologians began to intuitively name the term thealogy as they realized the masculinist connotation of the term theology. Some ovarinal or foundational contributions to thealogy and deasophy are found works of thealogians and deasophists Carol Christ, Charlotte Caron, Melissa Raphael, Max Dashu, Paul Reid-Bowen and various others. Thealogy and deasophy as scholarly and experiential fields will likely become increasingly popular as the Goddess spirituality movement is ever expanding and growing.

So what exactly constitutes thealogical discourse and deasophical discourse? Perhaps you are wondering what all the fuss is with changing one letter or you do not understand the need for a whole new discourse associated with the Divine realm as theology should be sufficient in the similar way that the term 'humankind' is not necessary to replace the term 'mankind'. It essentially means the same thing, right? Wrong. While the term 'humankind' essentially refers to the same meaning inherent in the concept 'mankind', thealogy does not refer to the 'same thing' but it refers to a completely whole other discourse. This will be explained, but first it is important to draw attention to why there is a need for a new discourse associated with the Divine realm. The reason why theology as a discourse no longer remains transformative or applicable to many who associate with the Goddess(es) or Sacred Feminine is that it tends to focus on the Judeo-Christian (male) God which does not speak to the experiences and beliefs of many spiritual and religious feminists. More than not speaking to their experiences, often, many women and men have left the theological tradition because it is alienating and names them (and marginalized others) as less valuable then the male normative. This is not the case for everyone, but this does constitute the experience of many which should be equally valued and legitimately considered.

When one wants to understand what thealogy or deasophy means or is about, they usually believe that it is important to understand what theology or theosophy is first and then to subsequently define thealogy and deasophy in opposition to theology/theosophy. Thealogy and deasophy should not be defined in reference or opposition to another discourse, but the aim of this Institute is to name thealogy and deasophy rooted in a priori experience and thought or to name them on their own terms. Whatever these terms are or however thealogy and deasophy take shape lies in the hands of those who practice and sympathetically study the relevant faith traditions. Thealogy and deasophy are typically associated with the Neopagan Goddess spiritual communities, though these discourses can be affiliated with aspects of Christian feminism, Muslim feminism, Jewish feminism, and Spiritual feminists who do not necessarily identify with the term Goddess but uphold the idea of the Sacred Feminine Principle.

Thealogy can be defined as follows: Within the context of various past and contemporary spiritual/religious traditions, thealogy concerns the inquiry into the meaning and nature of the Goddess(es) or Sacred Feminine; the meaning and nature of life forms and the universe in relation to the Divine/Divinities; and/or feminist understandings of the Divine that are post-kyriarchal. Thealogies encompass all orientations including polytheism, monotheism, metatheism, ditheism, pantheism and so on. Thealogy draws attention to various questions including but not limited to the following: What is the nature or essence of Goddess(es)? How do life-forms exist in relationship with the Goddess(es)? Who are we or who are we to become, and where are we going? What is the purpose of my life and how should I live my life? The root term 'thea' refers to Goddess while the root term 'logos' refers to the mind/intellect/word and is often translated as 'the study of'.

Because of the philosophical heritage of phalogocentrism that has dominated much of privileged (white male) Western thought, some spiritual feminist scholars and practitioners object to the use of a term rooted in the concept 'logos' because it denotes a discourse that is hyperrationalist with masculinist connotations making even the term 'thealogy' problematic for describing the wisdom of Goddess(es) or the Sacred Feminine. Instead, the root term 'sophia' or 'sophy' translates to 'feminine wisdom' which is not only of the mind but also of the body signaling the importance of embodied experience and the role and value of subjectivity in constructing knowledge. In the spirit of valuing the contributions that spiritual feminist women are making to the field of Goddess discourse, the term deasophy is included as an alternative term to thealogy. Whether it signifies a whole other discourse separate from thealogy, a differing approach, or simply represents an alternative name remains to be seen and time will tell. Max Dashu (2010), the deasophist who coined the term, refers to deasophy as a female-friendly, multidimensional, non-linear, non-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian discourse which recognizes the pervasiveness of the Sacred, present in every being, in Nature, and in the spiritual philosophies of all peoples. Deasophy can be preliminarily defined as follows: Within the context of past and contemporary spiritual/religious traditions, deasophy concerns the embodied inquiry into discerning the wisdom of the immanent Sacred Feminine or Goddess(es), Universe, and life forms in relation to the Divine/Divinities.

With respect to both thealogy (and likely deasophy), its methodological and epistemological orientation tends to be rooted in feminist thought, though thealogy does not necessarily have to be inherently feminist in orientation. At the Institute for Thealogy and Deasophy, we are devoted implicitly to feminist praxis, thus thealogy and deasophy are more accurately described as feminist thealogy and feminist deasophy. Epistemically and ontologically, thealogy and deasophy inquire into the wisdom and meaning of Goddess, life forms, and the universe drawing on a post-patriarchal and post-kyriarchal lens.

Engaging in thealogical reflection and/or deasophical engagement is not only personal, but also an interactive and dialogical endeavor. Methodologically speaking, they are mental and experientially based processes rather than dualistic ones or solely a cognitive function. They value subjectivity not objectivity, community not individualism, and are politically charged not apolitical. As such, they are constituted in both theory and practice. The nature of thealogical and deasophical discourse is fluid, continuous, and in a constant process of becoming; it is never stagnant, unchanging, or authoritatively binding. As both discourses are influenced by contemporary postmodern insights, both fields are hesitant towards universal truth claims and carry a healthy Neopagan cautionary stance towards the notion of absolutist doctrine that is superior to the faculties of reason and experience. Thus, thealogy and deasophy are focused more on processes that can mutate rather than producing products that are immutable and determinant. They are about processes and products so long as the products do not become oppressive. Beyond this, what constitutes thealogy and deasophy is the task of future scholars and practitioners to discern and articulate.