The Color Purple by Alice Walker was a Pulitzer Prize winning novel and Stephen Spielberg’s 1985 movie by the same name was nominated for eleven Academy Awards. Last month June and I both re-read the book and watched the movie again—and were impressed again by both.
Alice Walker is a talented novelist and poet. She
is also a lifetime social activist and the one who coined the term “womanist” (in
“Coming Apart,” her 1979 short story).
Walker was born in Georgia, the youngest of her sharecropper
parents’ eight children. She was an excellent student, and upon graduating from
high school she received a scholarship to prestigious (HBCU) Spelman College in
Atlanta. Howard Zinn was one of her professors there.
Under the direction of SNCC, Alice and many other Spelman
students joined the effort to desegregate Atlanta. They were supported by Prof.
Zinn—who subsequently was fired in the summer of 1963. Because of that, Alice transferred
to Sarah Lawrence College in New York and graduated in 1965.
Through the 1970s Walker was active both as a teacher and an
author, and then 40 years ago, in 1982, The Color Purple, her third
novel was published. The next year she became the first African American woman
to win the Pulitzer Prize for fiction.
The Color Purple is a feminist work about Celie,
an abused and uneducated African American woman’s struggle for empowerment. According
to Britannica, among other things the novel was “praised for the depth of
its female characters and for its eloquent use of Black English Vernacular.”
Here is a short conversation
between Shug and Celie that shows some of that vernacular—and indicates where
the title of the book came from:
Listen, God love everything you love—and a mess of stuff you don’t. But more than anything else, God love admiration. You saying God vain? I ast. Naw, she say. Not vain, just wanting to share a good thing. I think it pisses God off if you walk by the color purple in a field somewhere and don’t notice it (Kindle ed., p. 195).
The same Britannica article goes on to say, “The Color
Purple movingly depicts the growing up and self-realization of Celie, who
overcomes oppression and abuse to find fulfillment and independence.”
The novel is a classic, for there
are many today who need to overcome oppression and abuse the same as Celie did 100
years ago. More broadly, as a theology professor in Australia writes, The
Color Purple is
both a cry of rage and protest against the injustices and inhumanity we humans inflict on one another, and a stubborn affirmation of hope in the midst of suffering, of endurance against all odds, of a kind of triumph in the end as we become more and more who we truly are.*
The Color Purple is also a book about God. The
above quote from the book is just one of many referring to God.
The author herself said in a 2006 interview, “Twenty-five-years
later, it still puzzles me that The Color Purple is so infrequently discussed
as a book about God. About ‘God’ versus ‘the God image.’”**
The blogger cited above explains that Walker clearly holds a
panentheist view of God in which “the divine is deeply immanent within
everything, a faithful creator and life-giving Spirit. She revolts against the
intellectual idolatry that reduces God to the white, to the male, to the human.”
And Walker herself states that the “core teaching of the
novel” is delivered by Shug, who says to Celie, “I believe God is everything, .
. . Everything that is or ever was or ever will be. And when you can feel that,
and be happy to feel that, you’ve found it” (Kindle ed., p. 194).
In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “Look how the
wild flowers grow. They don't work hard to make their clothes. But I tell you
that Solomon with all his wealth wasn't as well clothed as one of them”
(Matt. 6:27-28, CEB).
Perhaps when he said this, Jesus was looking out over a
field of wild flowers and admiring the color purple.
_____
* Michael O’Neil in a 2016 blog post.
** From the Introduction of the book
in the Kindle version (loc. 80).
Note: For an abundance of information about
Alice Walker and her outstanding book, see https://bookanalysis.com/alice-walker/the-color-purple/.
This novel and the movie are two of my favorites in both genres. I used to use them in a course I taught at the KC Art Institute. And I'm a big fan of Alice Walker.
ReplyDeleteShug is a marvelous character, played extremely well in the movie by Margaret Avery. The scene with her father's church is a knockout scene and with all kinds of theological implications.
I also appreciate the panentheism. Every conception of God has its problems, but it seems to me that one of the most unintelligible is the orthodox Western view of God as separate from creation with additionally separate places (heaven and hell) for the penitent and the impenitent. As you know, process theology takes a panentheistic view of God, and it seems to me that a process view of the universe is really the only intellectually tenable one today. Even then, I would say that, in some ways, a negative theological view of God (all that can be said about God with confidence is what is not true about God) is also to be entertained, although my process friends are not keen on that idea.
I don't usually respond to your reply on my entries, even when you disagree with me, but I feel some need to respond this time. To answer your question, "But what does creation mean with a Creator?" I would ask whether that makes sense as a defense for God as separate from creation. I would assume that God can do a creation of which God is very much a part. There are stories in the Hindu Vedas and Upanishads which suggest that God did that very thing; i.e., created the universe out of Godself. And if you think about it, you and I and everybody else are creations of creation, and so we are all very much a part of our creator.
DeleteI'm not sure what you mean by "the thoroughgoing immanence of God" and by suggesting panentheism can be characterized by such, but such a view by itself is not a panentheistic view. That would be a pantheistic view, so it seems to me. Your comment sent me to my small library of process theology. Now, I wouldn't say I understand all about process theology, but it views God as creation (immanent) but also as more than creation (transcendent). Nowhere in my library does any process theologian claim that the process view of God is thoroughgoing immanence. Typically, apparently, the process theological paradigm also doesn't deal with God in those terms "transcendent" and "immanent," in part, I'm sure because it's irrelevant to the paradigm as it has developed. God and creation are both in process, even influencing one another, but they are not ultimately separate realities. The only use of both of those terms in a discussion of God I could locate, again in my modest library, are in Alfred North Whitehead ("father" of process philosophy and theology) in his magnum opus, "Process and Reality."
Anton, thanks for responding to my reply. I much enjoy having dialogue with Thinking Friends and would like to have more of such. But the problem, for me and you (and others), is having the time and energy to do that.
DeleteRegarding your first paragraph, I wonder on what basis you think the Hindu worldview is superior to or at least more accurate than the traditional Judeo-Christian worldview of creation. To me, emanation (God “creating” the physical world out of God) is different from creation. Such a view is based on monism, which I understand to be the “oneness” of all reality. Of course, this leads at least in some Hindu views that the physical world we see and think we know is only “maya,” or “illusion” which needs to be overcome by “enlightenment.” With reference to God, this is the basic view of pantheism rather than panentheism.
Monism is usually seen as the opposite of dualism, which has usually been the primary “Western” (Judeo-Christian) view of reality. But in my previous response I mentioned the paradoxical, non-dualistic, view of reality. That is what I sometimes heard religion scholars in Japan refer to as a “not-two” view. Monism emphasizes One, dualism emphasizes Two, but perhaps the truth lies in adopting the view of Not-Two (which is also Not-One).
In keeping with that view, if I had only written about "the thoroughgoing immanence of God," that would, I guess, be the same as pantheism. But that is balanced by the equal emphasis on “the thoroughgoing transcendence of God,” which of course is a rejection of pantheism.
My understanding of process theology is, I’m sure, inferior to what you know about it. I have tried to learn about it and to appreciate the contribution it makes to our thinking about God and the universe—and I have both some limited knowledge and appreciation. But I have read little of Whitehead (and I’m not sure I understood what I did read) and of Charles Hartshorne. I have learned most from the former (emeritus) directors of the Center for Process Studies at Claremont School of Theology: John B. Cobb (who turned 97 this year!), David Ray Griffin, and Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki. (I have even had brief personal conversations with Cobb and Suchocki). Still, though, there is much I don’t know or understand about process theology—and perhaps because of my ignorance, I question the validity of some of their assertions.
I think your comments on "creation" being different from emanation is merely a semantic distinction. I haven't investigated it, but I don't think the term "creation" requires that the creator be separate from the creation. As I mentioned, we creations are not separate from the creation of which we are a part. [Are we, then, emanations of creation? :-) ] I don't have a problem with using "creation," but I don't mind "emanation" either. My basis for agreeing with process thought here is primarily because of the problematic nature of dualism. As you know, it's quite likely that the Western dualistic view comes originally from Zoroastrianism. However, that in itself does not discredit it. Dualism can also be extrapolated from human experience.
DeleteI could also claim a biblical justification for emanation since, as you know, the biblical text (particularly Genesis) offers no support for Augustine's influential view of creatio ex nihilo, which also makes no sense under the term "creation." "Creation" requires something to create from, or so it seems to me. But the biblical view is not the final authority for me either.
Obviously I haven't read your dissertation, but I don't see how the problems that come with dualism or monism are overcome by the use of "paradoxical, non-dualism."
My adoption of the process paradigm (including its monism) is based on several criteria. I believe that our current theological beliefs have to be consistent with human reason, human experience (including those of transcendence and of scientific learning), and the longings of the human heart and with an openness to change. While no historical Christian theology can conform absolutely to reason and experience without some problematic questions and assumptions, I'm convinced that the best fit currently is with process.
By the way, thanks for this blog theme today.
ReplyDeleteHere are comments from Thinking Friend Michael Olmsted in Springfield, Mo.:
ReplyDelete"We humans, even those of us who claim to know the correct image of God, insist on confining God to that neat little box of personal satisfaction that serves our expectations without demanding much in return. I visited my beloved wife in her Alzheimer’s care facility this week, watched the falling leaves in my yard herald the arrival of fall, and attended the funeral of a longtime friend ... and knew the presence of God beyond the theological words and traditions that too often obscure the incomparable love and grace of our Father/God."
"A touching resume of 'The Color Purple,' Leroy. You make me want to read it again." (Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky)
ReplyDelete"I love your concluding lines!" (the totality of an email from a Thinking Friend in Maryland)
ReplyDelete"Wow, Leroy. Why does your last paragraph bring me to tears?" (the totality of an email from a Thinking Friend in St. Louis)
ReplyDeleteYesterday, Thinking Friend (and church friend) Mary Redmon sent me an email, which said, "I appreciated your blog post" and included the information that the Metropolitan Ensemble Theater will be performing the musical "The Color Purple" at the Warwick Theater in Kansas City twelve times between Nov. 11 and 26.
ReplyDelete