Glenda Simms JAMAICA, LIKE many other nation states, is at a historic point when there is a frantic search for answers to economic problems, endemic criminality, high murder rates, growing levels of illiteracy and all the other social and developmental issues that confront both developed and developing countries. Over and above all these, Jamaica is in search of a prayer and a "generic God".
While many writers of all persuasions are busily trying to pen the right prayer suitable for our contemporary times and political maturity as a nation, we need to ponder seriously the concept of a "generic God" which seems to have been accepted by all and sundry in the Parliament and beyond.
On the surface, the idea of a "generic God" is merely common sense since from the very founding of Jamaica, the population represented a multiracial and a multicultural mix.
The motto "Out of Many One People" is an acknowledgement of the multi-ethnic face-scape of the modern Jamaican state. However, it is not purporting that God is conceived in the same way amongst these groups. The search for the "generic God" is obviously an attempt to emphasise the "many" in the motto rather than the "one" (whatever the definition and reality of oneness is in contemporary Jamaican society).
But Jamaica is not the only country in the Americas that has tried to search for a "generic God".
Canada is a prime example of the journey and the roadblocks along this path. Peter S. Li, a professor at the University of Saskatchewan, has highlighted in an article entitled, The Multicultural Debate, the complexity of satisfying the social, political and spiritual needs and aspirations of every group in a society.
In his article, Li reminds us that it was in 1971 that the then Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, introduced a multicultural policy to the Canadian House of Commons. Since then, there has been much debate and confusion about what multiculturalism really means. In Li's words "multiculturalism stands for an amorphous version of Canadian pluralism... despite lacking substantive clarity, the notion 'multiculturalism' is appealing as a Canadian norm because it symbolises a tolerant feature of Canadian society".
This political stance sets Canadians apart from the Americans who have pandered to the "assimilationist or "melting pot" ideology.
In all of this debate, there is always a subtle undertone of ambiguity and a silent belief that all the gods of all the "peoples" can find common cause.
However, in many jurisdictions, the solution to the struggle to find that "one God" has not always been smooth. For this reason, some school districts in the United States and in Canada have banned prayers in schools. This has been done because human groupings cling very closely to their definition of their God and this definition is not all-inclusive by any means. Therefore no "one prayer" or form of worship could satisfy the denominations of Christianity, Islam or the other major religious groupings.
So the search for a "generic God" is not as simple as asking a pharmacist for the generic version of the "designer drug" that one's doctor has prescribed.
FIELD OF CONFUSION
Oh no, it is a trek into a minefield of confusion, ideological differences and long-held beliefs about the very nature of God.
At this time, the women of Jamaica should make sure that they voice their opinions on the nature of the "generic God". In light of the fact that Jamaica is a predominantly "Christian" country, the search for a generic God will force us to confront the historical sexist ideology of the interpretation that most churches give to the biblical plan for women.
Natalie Zemon Davis, a former history professor at Princeton University, brought home this issue in an article, The Best of the Story published in the New York Times Magazine of May 16, 1999. She reminds us that the place of women in Christianity has been debated since biblical times. She pointed out that male theologians have historically taught that "woman was not created in God's image". Of course, she also brought to our attention the courageous stance of many historic women such as Hildegard of Bingen, a nun in the Rhineland who insisted that "a woman could draw close to God as well as any man".
Centuries have evolved since these earliest debates, yet today there are still churches whose gods give them the right to carve out a lesser place for women than for men in the running of the church and in the sacraments. These churches will be greatly challenged by the notion of the "generic God". Why? Because a "generic God" would be both male and female since we all are created in the image of God. Or are we not?
BAN PRAYERS?
What we would need to do is to conceptualise the "generic God" within a framework of values and attitudes that should give our Parliamentarians a strong vision of a "new Jamaica".
Perhaps it is time to pose some questions! Could a "generic God" be the most equitable of gods? Would such a concept of God force us to examine and reformulate our ideas about our place in society? Would we be rid of notions created by racism, classism and sexism?
Such a god would definitely challenge differential power relationships. Would a generic god weaken or reinforce ethnic and cultural identities and power base?
No doubt a "generic God" should challenge the way Rastafarians are treated in the Jamaican society. After all there will no longer be "lesser gods".
Such a god would be interpreted as having the best qualities of all the religions and denominations.
If we do not find that "generic God", could the churches that now discriminate against women in the name of God continue to do? When would they stop such practices?
If these questions cause too much confusion, perhaps our Parliament should cease the search for an all-inclusive prayer and choose instead a "generic" space of quiet and contemplation in which everyone can worship silently a god who will not reinforce the artificial barriers of class, caste, gender and religious denominations.
Indeed, banning prayers in Parliament might be easier than finding a "generic God"!
* Dr. Glenda P. Simms is the Executive Director of the Bureau of Women's Affairs.
