quote:

---

Originally posted by OgtheDim:
What are people's thoughts on referring to God using the 3rd person singular female pronoun?

---

 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
I put an opinion about this on the thread in Styx, not realizing there was one here.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
In maytters of faith and divine invocation I won't do anything that the Church and the Bible does not do. That's not to say that our Heavenly Father doesn't have a motherly concern for us HE does. But, it's still "He."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
Since God is the fount and source of the characteristics of both feminine and masculine ("Let us make humans in our own image" "male and female"), it seems to me biblical, theologically sound and appropriate to use "she" as well as "he" for God.

---

quote:

---

1. The terminology used in the Bible of the church as "The Bride of Christ", this seems to me to require in relation to humanity a masculinity in Gods nature. If we reject this, we might as well say that it would be equally justified for Christ to have been female and for the church to be called Christ's bridegroom. Could we say that without profoundly altering our theology?

---

quote:

---

Matt, that sounds like a whole host of slippery slope arguments to me. Do you know a real person who regularly refers to God as "she" who has any of the problems you think would result from this usage?

---

quote:

---

to imagine the Church as groom and Christ as bride would not alter my theology at all. Certainly not profoundly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
My assumption is that God in his omnicience already knows what the consequences of calling God "She" would be, and in his wisdom has commanded against it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Whole other thread there really...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

1. The terminology used in the Bible of the church as "The Bride of Christ", this seems to me to require in relation to humanity a masculinity in Gods nature. If we reject this, we might as well say that it would be equally justified for Christ to have been female and for the church to be called Christ's bridegroom. Could we say that without profoundly altering our theology? Matt

---

I'm not sure that this analogy of Bride and Bridgegroom says anything specific about the masculinity in God's nature, any more than it says anything about the femininity of the Church's nature. I've always understood it simply to be an example of the kind of intimate loving relationship Christ has with his church; God has with his people Israel etc.

In fact, analogies can be as widely or narrowly interpreted as our imaginations allow them to be. Checking out the three parables of God's grace in seeking out the 'lost', for example in Luke 15, we are given the three analogies of a shepherd looking for his lost sheep, a woman looking for a lost coin, and a father welcoming back a lost son.

Analogy one and three are very heavily featured in our use of understanding the words 'shepherd' and 'father' - quite rightly. But God as 'woman/housewife' turning the house upside down to find her precious coin seems not to receive this affirmative treatment. Perhaps our interpretation of the middle parable differs from our interpretation of the other two; perhaps we simply find it harder to imagine God as an anxious housewife, than we do as an anxious shepherd, or an anxious father. It actually doesn't matter that much, so long as we get the point of the analogy.

I don't think we need to dig into analogies too deeply to justify our personal preferences to understand God's action of grace in our lives; regardless of how that language is gendered. So I'm no more convinced by the 'God is he' argument based on the limited metaphors we are compelled to use, than I would be by the 'God is she' argument premised in the same way.

God is no more or less feminine than masculine; but is something much more unknowable and mysterious besides. So I am no more upset or outraged by someone preaching a 'she' God, than I am by someone preaching a 'he' God.

I'm glad that Jesus said we should pray in such a way, when he introduced the model of what we know as the Lord's prayer to his disciples. I would argue, however, that it is a pattern rather than an absolute definition. Again, I understood his emphasis on 'Father' was on the intimate child/parent relationship, rather than the notion of God being just like one's father - for some people a very unpleasant thought to say the least.

To me, thinking of Christ or God as perfect husband/groom or father is about thinking of God as intimate, close, loving and supremely showing all those fantastic qualities which are often lacking in the human equivalent. That some people do not find those specific words particularly helpful is something I would respect, should they wish to try to discover these fantastic qualities within their own relationship with God by the use of different pro-nouns or words.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I have never taken the Lord's Prayer as an absolute commandment - it seems more like an example to me. If it's a commandment, then we have no business praying any other prayer, do we?

And if we are commanded to pray the Lord's prayer as written, then I understand that it is a gross distortion, with important theological implications, to call God "Father" when Jesus called God "Daddy." Could be wrong about the Father/Daddy thing, and I hope someone with better knowledge of the original language will help out on this, but I've heard from different people in different pulpits that "Daddy" would be a far better translation.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Cross-post with Anselmina, who deserves a .
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by linzc:
To give a concrete example, in the church I am currently attending we sing a song which refers to God as mother and describes various feminine features.

---

quote:

---

I refer to God almost invariably as male because as others have said, unusual language about God just draws attention to itself. I think feminine language is perfectly legitimate, but I also agree that the male language, at least for two persons of the Trinity, is so deeply ingrained in Christian devotion that it is pointless to try to change it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
Surely not pointless. Surely all the more reason? I may be no friend of political correctness but I do feel it's important to challenge peoples sterotypes. Refer to God as she and you will make people think differently about her (and possibly make people think differently about women too).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
In the case of the person who chooses to reject caling God "he" altogether in favour of calling God "She", then they have already fallen into the trap of worshipping primarily the aspects of God they happen to like (ie.the feminine ones).

You may say that I, by by choosing to call God "he", am doing the same in reverse. I disagree. The difference being I did not choose call God "he". I call him he because that is what Jesus told me to call him.

---

quote:

---

It is quite true that someone who thinks to themselves "shall I call God he or she?" and then chooses to call God "he" (as if it were a matter of their choice what God's gender is, rather than Gods) would be equally guilty of only worshipping the aspects of God that they chose to worship.

---

God doesn't have gender. God is in all places, at all times, beyond all knowing. And you think you can squeeze God into a certain construct? That's like finding a biblical proof that God had a certain hair or eye colour as Jesus, and so deciding that God has that colour hair, or those colour eyes. Or like ascribing an age to God.

You limit God by assigning a gender. Then your cultural and social thought-patterns regarding that gender (even subconsciously) colour your thoughts about God.

Viki
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
MatttheMM,
I find it a shocking image to think of God incarnate as a woman being abused and tortured and crucified naked. I've thought about it for a long time - and maybe it helps me to understand more about how appalling and horrific God's sacrifice was.

There are plenty of images of God as woman in the Bible (Anselmina - neatly put!) and in writings of saints, so why don't we use them? Patriarchy? Habit? Fear?

I think God gives us all these images so that we can relate to God in the way we need to at the time, and also stretch our concept of God by taking on board the more uncomfortable, obscure or unusual images. We can't just stick to one idea as that confines God to a box far too small.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I understand with my head that God is beyond gender. But growing up in a culture which always used the 'he' pronoun for God, it just sounds right. I have also noticed that, outside academic writing, the use of the 'she' pronoun for God is mainly in fun, eg. When God made men She was only joking. So it always makes me want to laugh when I read or hear someone calling God 'she'.

Because I know that there are mentions in the bible and ancient writings, eg. Julian of Norwich, of motherly images of God, I tend to call God 'he' but use it in an ambiguous way (rather like the use of 'mankind' to mean men and women). This may not satisfy everyone, but I'm happy with it.
 

---

Posted by ThoughtCriminal (# 3030) on :
 
Re the "bride of Christ" thing: I think the problem with this lies in the fact that Paul drew an analogy with something that existed at the time, but was not necessarily ideal in itself (except for God). OK, that maybe doesnt make much sense, but:

The relationship between a first-century husband and wife was unequal. This does not mean such inequality is a good thing in this case.

The relationship between a 21st-century husband and wife (at least in the West) is much more likely to be more equal, if not totally equal. Thus the apparent interchangeability, due to both being equal human beings.

But God and the Church are not interchangeable, nor are they equal! By calling the Church "the bride of Christ", Paul was saying the relationship between God and the Church is and/or should be unequal in the same way that a first-century husband/wife relationship was unequal, without actually condoning that inequality - merely using it as a reference point.

Hope that makes a bit more sense.

As for God's gender or transcendence thereof, I think Viki puts it exactly right:

quote:

---

God doesn't have gender. God is in all places, at all times, beyond all knowing. And you think you can squeeze God into a certain construct? That's like finding a biblical proof that God had a certain hair or eye colour as Jesus, and so deciding that God has that colour hair, or those colour eyes. Or like ascribing an age to God.

You limit God by assigning a gender. Then your cultural and social thought-patterns regarding that gender (even subconsciously) colour your thoughts about God.

---

 

---

Posted by ThoughtCriminal (# 3030) on :
 
BTW, I believe there are some languages, such as Finnish, which use one pronoun for both "he" and "she", ie. a non-gender-specific pronoun which, unlike "it", which they also have a word for, refers only to persons, which would IMHO solve quite neatly the he/she problem. Maybe that should be adopted in English...
 

---

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
[Finnish Tangent]I concur with the Finnish statement...I have worked for 4 years for a Finnish company...they don't have a gender specific pronoun like we [English speakers do] in Suomi [Finnish for the Finnish Language]. Also, another interesting note...they don't have a word for "please". When we [Americans] learned this...it was a good thing. We understood why the Finns seem to always bark orders at us.[/Finnish Tangent]

I agree with Matt the Mad Medic btw. I don't believe in Dispensationalism, but believe Older premillennialism...hence the arguement of 21st Century makes it null and void doesn't sway me. Heuristic evaluations are more swaying, taken in the verses historical tense.

*Yeah, I know about fufilling the law..ie..women can't go anywhere when they have their cycle, sacrificing animals...and yes, I believe Jesus's dying took away that requirement of the law (he fufilled the law) and that He was the sacrificial lamb of God, hence no more need to do blood sacrifices. I will stop now.
 

---

Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
I addressed this issue on the "Mother God" thread, which is no longer available. But I dug out my draft.

quote:

---

This is something with which I’ve struggled for a long time. I realize that, for some, all of this is nonsense. But for me, it’s vitally important.

For reasons I won’t go into here, I can’t relate to God as male, let alone “father”. Because of this, sitting through a church service injures me, with each and every word about God—and I don’t go to church anymore.

I spent years searching for Christian resources that referred to the Divine Feminine. This was when they were very hard to find. I looked for appropriate groups, without much luck. I spoke to my then-minister. He’s of the “it’s all symbols, anyway” view; so while he was somewhat sympathetic, he really didn’t get it.

So…I looked elsewhere. I found some wonderful resources in Paganism, especially when I discovered the magazine, “Sagewoman”. I’ve found, over the years, that many Pagan women are wounded, former Christians and Jews. Some can’t tolerate anything from their former faith. Others bridge/combine different traditions, because they can’t fill their needs any other way. Often, this involves referring to God/dess as “She”.

SaraJane, thanks for your lovely paragraph about other images of God! Important to remember, because many people can’t relate to God as any kind of parent. The Bible uses many other kinds of God-language, but we’ve gotten stuck in a “parent” rut.

I did, eventually, find more Christian resources for acknowledging Her. I’ve yet to find a worship group. God and I are working all of this out, slowly.

For anyone else who’s looking for resources, see what I and others posted on the “Feminism & Religion” thread ( here )

Also, 2 beautiful children’s books about names for God:

In God’s Name, by Sandy Eisenberg Sasso
Old Turtle, by Douglas Wood

For those who find all of this to be nonsense, perhaps it’s because the Names you use work for you. But what they didn’t??

---

quote:

---

Re the "bride of Christ" thing: I think the problem with this lies in the fact that Paul drew an analogy with something that existed at the time, but was not necessarily ideal in itself (except for God). OK, that maybe doesnt make much sense, but..

---

quote:

---

You limit God by assigning a gender. Then your cultural and social thought-patterns regarding that gender (even subconsciously) colour your thoughts about God.

---

quote:

---

but does anyone else refer to the Holy Spirit as 'she'? I don't do it all the time, but sometimes I find it helpful, depending on the situation. And it's certainly much better than referring to The Spirit as an 'it', which I've heard many times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by golden key:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:

I've felt an inner spiritual healing of the hurts caused by my bad relationship with my earthly father, by replacing him with God as Father.

Doesn't work for me. It's like penicillin--very good for many people, but others are deathly allergic to it.

It seems to me, that such an inclusive approach, to deal with this problem, just leaves people unhealed. The issue of pain, needs to be dealt with, using inclusive language, for this reason, papers the cracks, in my opinion.

I disagree. Forcing yourself to use the hurtful language is papering over the pain. Using other language acknowledges it, gives you a way to approach God without being limited by your experiences every time--and is very healing.

It's hard to heal when you're constantly reinjuring the wound.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:

---

but does anyone else refer to the Holy Spirit as 'she'? I don't do it all the time, but sometimes I find it helpful, depending on the situation.

---

It seems to me more valid to refer to the Holy Spirit as a "She" then of the other two Persons of the Trinity. It is notable, that of the three persons of the Trinity.

However, the Bible seems to me to positively encourage us to see the Spirit as multi-faceted and describe the presence of the Spirit in whatever terms best fits with our current experience of it. The writers of scripture constantly grapple with different metaphors to describe the Spirit. (Eg. refreshing like water, burning like fire, unseen power like the wind, gentle like a dove). When speaking of the Spirits gentle ministering touch, to describe the Spirit as "she" seems entirely appropriate.

matt

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
I imagine that would make conversations about God rather complicated.

"Can I tell you about God?"
"Sure."
"You loves you."
[snip]

---

You know, (and You knows! ) that's not what I meant. Pronouns are not simply placeholders for nouns & names, but make a statement about them which, in the case of God, it is not accurate to make. Got is not "it." God is not "she." God is not "he." Every time we use an English 3rd-person pronoun to refer to God, we imply something about God that is not strictly true.

Wm Duncan
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
I have never seen myself as assigning a gender to God beyond that which God has given us to call him...the gender which CHRIST assigned to him and as his disiple I have followed.

---

• God is close (like the relationship between a toddler/little kid and a parent in a good family), so you don't have to stand on ceremony. Speak simply and from the heart.
• Rocognise that God made everything and everyone, and is all-powerful and all-knowing and awesome and wise and great and good. Give God praise and glory and thanks before you do anything else.
• Ask for what you need. God already knows it, but ask anyway, cause God loves you and loves giving you stuff.
• Say sorry for things you've done that have stuffed up relationships, both with God and with others.
• Ask God to keep you safe, to protect you and be with you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
I imagine that would make conversations about God rather complicated.

"Can I tell you about God?"
"Sure."
"You loves you."
[snip]

---

quote:

---

Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all.

---

quote:

---

It has been said that this is not the kind of being to whom man [sic] can pray; no, but without this revelation there is no sort of thing to whom men can pray, and the orisons of Christendom will be too much circumscribed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
The modernisers would like to gainsay Him on this subject for fear of offending women. This is PC crap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:


Jesus used the metaphor of a loving Father as our best way to understand God. The modernisers would like to gainsay Him on this subject for fear of offending women. This is PC crap. I always refer to God as Father in prayer, not because I believe he's a man, but because I don't think anyone has come up with a metpahor more beautiful or unifying than that devised by Jesus Himself.

---

quote:

---

1. To call a "gentle ministering touch" feminine is too steriotypical for me - it can be masculine.

---

quote:

---

Some of the women mystics seem to experience the touch of the Holy Spirit like an orgasmic sexual encounter which they would probably describe as like penetration.

---

quote:

---

However, I think that we can't even stick the masculine or feminine pronoun on to any one member of the Trinity.

---

quote:

---

3. Julian of Norwich called Jesus "Our Mother" and that feels to me perfectly appropriate.

---

It depends. It would be better to state it as a simile than as a metaphor. That is to say "Jesus is likeour mother." would be theologically safer territory. That way Jesus is maintained as an entity in his own right, and the "mother" is an additional term to describe him.

The problem with using a direct metaphor is that you start losing track of the original entity existing in it's own right. If we say Jesus "is like a dove in his gentleness" and "is like a mother in his faithfulness" we are all the time adding to the personality of Jesus and making our mental image of him more vibrant and colourful by drawing on things we know well to make him less shadowy and more real to us.

However, when you move to saying "Jesus is our Mother" or "Jesus is a dove". You end up losing Jesus as a real individual who lived and breathed on this planet (and of course still lives ) and instead iconifying him as a set of ideas: "faithfulness" "gentleness" and seeing those ideas as "living" in the mother or the dove.

matt

[sorted out quote]

[ 10. November 2002, 09:14: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

---

Posted by Glenn Oldham (# 47) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:

---

3. Julian of Norwich called Jesus "Our Mother" and that feels to me perfectly appropriate.

---

It depends. It would be better to state it as a simile than as a metaphor. That is to say "Jesus is likeour mother." would be theologically safer territory. That way Jesus is maintained as an entity in his own right, and the "mother" is an additional term to describe him.

The problem with using a direct metaphor is that you start losing track of the original entity existing in it's own right. If we say Jesus "is like a dove in his gentleness" and "is like a mother in his faithfulness" we are all the time adding to the personality of Jesus and making our mental image of him more vibrant and colourful by drawing on things we know well to make him less shadowy and more real to us.

However, when you move to saying "Jesus is our Mother" or "Jesus is a dove". You end up losing Jesus as a real individual who lived and breathed on this planet (and of course still lives ) and instead iconifying him as a set of ideas: "faithfulness" "gentleness" and seeing those ideas as "living" in the mother or the dove.

---

quote:

---

The price of metaphor is eternal vigilance.

---

quote:

---

Surely God is beyond all our descriptions? Whatever labels we use of God, even those given to us directly by our Lord, capture only a fraction of who and what God is? Therefore we should only call God "he" if we remember that "he" is also "she" and "not-he" at the same time, only "she" if we remember that "she" is also "he" and "not-she".

---

quote:

---

How often would I have gathered your children as a hen gathers her brood under her wings ... (Matthew 23:37)

---

quote:

---

We talk of Jesus as 'the Son of God' and don't realise that it is a metaphor (but if pressed no-one I know believes that God is biological, nor has DNA that could be used in a paternity test).

---

quote:

---

Some years ago, I went to an MCC Church, where inclusive language was used all the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCC:
One thing I do find diffcult, and I'm sure more "Catholic" people than I (and maybe Orthodox too) may have someting to say about this, is that I have heard it said that the feminine side of Christianity finds its voice/vision etc, in Mary.
This has never satisfied me, maybe others could explain, discuss etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huia:
I prefer the term which translates as "God Bearer" which is, I think, Orthodox.(I can't spell it though).

---

"Theotokos"
 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Perhaps because their founder was a woman, the Christian Scientists see God as beyond gender-definable. Their version of the Lord's prayer begins "Our Father-Mother God, all-harmonious." Though I would scarcely agree with them on many things, that does greatly appeal to me.
 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
I believe that all of us know that God is beyond our description, but that we mortals do need some "concrete" way in which we can refer to him.

I am puzzled, nonetheless, with (I hope I am expressing this clearly) why our language about God has acquired different meanings because there seems to be a self-absorbed interpretation. Heavens, if Jesus used the reference to the chick today, someone would be going on about how s/he once saw a chicken decapitated, was traumatised, and therefore became a lifelong vegetarian... so the language had a meaning s/he could not accept.

I personally loathe inclusive language of this type (though, as I said, if people find it useful to use this privately, that is another matter - I hate its being forced on the rest of us.) I remember well when this sort of business first got started - when (all) women (supposedly) found that non-inclusive language "eliminated them." Rubbish! Can any woman seriously say that "peace to men of good will" ever meant that Jesus only redeemed males?! That implication would be an insult to my intelligence - and Lord knows the many female mystics never had any such impression.

Francis of Assisi could speak of "Wisdom Queen," for example, but this was not catering to a vocal feminist minority. Julian of Norwich's references to Christ as mother contained rich imagery of the Trinity and Eucharist. I doubt that either had any relation to "issues" with their parents.

That is part of my annoyance. Worship is not some form of group therapy! So much of the current emphasis on what images can be used for God is based on what someone's past experience can have on making such images remind them of a cruel Father or Mother.

The human condition has been uniformly troubled since Eden - why, in this bizarre age, is everything so self-centred?
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Newman's Own
Is not alone;
I agree
with her (or she).

I also want to suggest the notion that perhaps it's not a metaphor in the conventional sense -- that perhaps God as Father is the original base for the earthly masculine and father... that in a special way, He really is Father, King, etc, in a way that He is not Mother or Queen. (Though in a certain sense, within the Trinity, the Second Person is feminine in relationship to God the Father, but masculine in relationship to everything else.) Femininity's original would be, not God as such, but all of Creation. This may sound sexist but it makes sense to me and seems to fit with traditional theology as far as I can tell.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I.e. -- that if anything -- earthly fathers and husbands and kings and masculinity are a metaphor for Him, or a symbol of Him -- rather than the other way around -- like in the way that a picture is a symbol for the thing painted.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
It's all down to sex really! Patriarchal rather than matriarchal language can be more easily demythologised / deconstructed to suit creation ex nihilio. Gestation (rather than insemination) language leads to cosmic eggs and the universe be confused with God .... as in many pagan / polytheistic systems. This leaves matriarchal language appropriate for God's care but still under the heading on (non-male) Father. In Christianity God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You can't chop and change labels in a nominalist manner without eroding the infrastructure of Orthodox belief .... which is precisely what some people want to try and do of course.
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
My....oh my....hasn't this been interesting.

Before I weigh in on this one, let me say thank-you for this discussion. Thought provoking all along.

to all for their thoughful posts to my OP.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:

The human condition has been uniformly troubled since Eden - why, in this bizarre age, is everything so self-centred?

---

In a way, Newman's Own, you've hit it on the head by saying our present age is self-centred - especially when one takes into account that 'self' comes in two varieties, male and female. That's why the current age has been struggling to try to represent female as well as male, in politics, work, theology etc. In previous millenia, the age was generally male-centred, as in using the male as the 'norm' and centring theology, politics, economy, society and language around that 'norm'.

Now that we no longer live in that male-centred, androcentric, age (hard to believe at times, I know!), some people think it's appropriate that along with the revision of the politics, the society, the economy etc, the language, too, can be revised to reflect this. Clearly, some people don't!

The best feminist theologies will try to focus on 'God-centredness', but in a way even this might be supposed to be doomed to failure; as no matter what language we use it would still be deeply inadequate anyway to express anything about God. Even if it comes straight from the Bible.

In a sense, almost every word is merely a metaphor, or at best a descriptor, for an idea, or an image or a concept. This is why I don't waste my time getting het up with the predominance of male-centred language in worship (though obviously I'm happy to offer a critique on it!); and marvel at the traditionalists who get themselves all worked up over feminist or non-male centred language.

I don't know what the fuss is about, anyway. Most churches within my acquaintanceship use traditional language and Biblical male metaphors without any thought whatsoever about its not being PC, or whether or not there might be more than one way to think about a thing. So far as language is concerned few churches have the imagination or creativity to get beyond the 'what we've always done' stage.

Traditionalism is alive(?) and kicking in the majority of churches so far as language is concerned so I have no idea why so many language traditionalists are wetting their knickers over this one!
 

---

Posted by godspagan (# 513) on :
 
Me I think (as do others) that God is both male and female. However, I believe that He is both male and female bound together in loving tension, like the First and Second Great commandments. Bear with me a trifle and I will elaborate:

First, there is inherent tension between the first and second great commandments. It might be also be said that the roles of man and woman (as represented by Adam and Eve) are also held in tension. The role of man in Creation is given in Genesis 2: 15. “The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden to work it and tend it.” The Hebrew word for “work” in this context is “abad” meaning “service to one's 'lord'”. When "abad" is used in the context of serving God, such service appears to be that of son
and father, or lord and vassal (e.g. "send free my son that he might serve me"). Where "abad" is used in the context of serving other "lords" (such as Pharaoh in Exodus) or the King of Babylon in Esther "abad" takes on other meanings including "perish", "destroy" and usually involves abject rather than joyful "slavery".
By contrast, in scripture, ordinary service to other humans is usually given as "sharath" while
"painstaking-labor" or "anguish" is "itzavon" and
"crushing labor" (such as that frowned on in
Deuteronomy) "perekh".

Thus, it might be said that the first duty of "mankind" (as represented by Adam) is to serve God. By contrast, the first duty of "mankind" (as represented by Eve) is to be a “helper” to mankind. Although we in the 21st century think of "helper" as a negative or subordinate position, such connotation was not present in the word chosen. ‘Helper’ (Hebrew "ezer"), used to describe the woman, is most often used in reference to God, (eg. "I will send the Holy Spirit to help you") and therefore denotes a superior rather than an inferior being. "Helpers" who are inferior are usually described as young servants with the word "na-ar" meaning a child slave or servant (such as the child Samuel).

In most passages of the Bible, women are represented as acting in their roles of “helpers” in service to mankind. Both the midwives and Pharaoh’s daughter choose humanity over “divinity”, as represented by the “God-King”,
Pharaoh. At least in this context, their role was not offensive to YHWH who “blessed the midwives”. Eve chooses humanity over divinity in the Garden of Eden, as does Lot’s wife, who looked back, in compassion, at the destruction of Sodom, in defiance of YHWH’s order.

In Genesis the fragile bond, maintaining the communion between the first and second commandments as represented by Adam and Eve is lost by the figurative action of disobediance that placed love of mankind over love of God. As I see it the second commandment (represented figuratively by Eve) was made subject to the first as a consequence of the Fall but was never intended to be in opposition to the first great commandment at Creation. In a perfect world, loving one's neighbor should not be opposed to loving and being obedient to God.

In that sense it matter how we address our God. This is not because God is not both male and female. Nor is it because praying "Our Mother" is inferior to praying "Our Father". It is because the way we pray orients our relationships and theology in a subtle fashion. By praying "Our Father" we acknowledge the divine relationship as taking the most prominent place in our affections. When we pray "Our Mother" we place (IMHO) our love of our neighbor as taking the most prominent place in our affections.

I think it also makes a difference whether we are the "bride of Christ" or the "bridegroom of Christ". The church as the "bride of Christ" represents mankind and the second commandment, while Christ represents God. The fact that Christ can also represent man, does not mean that humanity can represent God in a "bridegroom of Christ" metaphor. As I see it, in the marriage of the Lamb and his Bride, creation is restored to her state prior to the fall. Mariage, in this context reminds me of the Hindu word for "love"in the context of "marriage" which is "Tantra". "Tantra" means "essentials" in Sanscrit, and is derived from the root word "to weave". In Hindu mythology, the creation emanates from the marriage dance of Shiva (The Creator) and Shakti (who represents mankind) who are woven together in their essentials, to create new life in joyful union. I think the marriage of Christ and His church is supposed to be something like that.

Pax
Shari

Shari
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
To a few points raised:

Worship: The use of "She" in worship is jarring.
Why? Because we are, by and large, USED to God referred to as He.
But, for some of us who have looked at the dual-gender nature of God, the complete lack of reference to God as female can be equally jarring.

Example: There is this chorus where the main tag line repeated over and over is.....
"Isn't He"
The whole of the trinity is described but the line said before is always "Isn't He....". Unfortunately, the statement always plowing through to me is God's a guy.
(O.K. this chorus may be one that causes some to ; my reason to use this example is only to describe a situation, not good worship)

The answer to me is not to use the female pronoun in worship or discussions in order to make a statement, but to re-discover areas where the aspect of God being worshipped is maternal and use the appropriate word. Otherwise, I believe myself to be limiting God.

And, Matt the Medic, no...I do not believe myself picking and choosing what I like about God. I look at this as a journey to discover God's wholeness.

Oh, and can I just say I also despise the whole idea of calling God "Parent God". to that one.

The Lord's Prayer:
If this prayer is the reason to always call God by the paternal, should we then also ONLY pray using that particular prescribed wording? ie. If the Lord's prayer is a prescribed way of praying, then why do we pray using other words? You can't have it both ways. Either the Lord's prayer is the ONLY prayer we can use, or we are allowed to use it as a guide. And...as praying for daily bread does not always mean talking about bread but about sustenance of many kinds, surely in our prayers and worship we can use other words then bread or Father? Again, I see this arguement as limiting God.
 

---

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Can any woman seriously say that "peace to men of good will" ever meant that Jesus only redeemed males?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I.e. -- that if anything -- earthly fathers and husbands and kings and masculinity are a metaphor for Him, or a symbol of Him -- rather than the other way around -- like in the way that a picture is a symbol for the thing painted.

---

Oh goodness, CM, this is horrifying!

We are left with the idea that whereas males are somehow a symbol of God in a way females are not. Why not go the whole hog and simply say that females do not possess the image of God, but only the image of the image of God??
 

---

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :
 
Sorry for the multiple posts, I will try to get the rest of my responses in this one post...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Patriarchal rather than matriarchal language can be more easily demythologised / deconstructed to suit creation ex nihilio.

---

quote:

---

You can't chop and change labels in a nominalist manner without eroding the infrastructure of Orthodox belief .... which is precisely what some people want to try and do of course.

---

quote:

---

Then godspagan said:
By praying "Our Father" we acknowledge the divine relationship as taking the most prominent place in our affections. When we pray "Our Mother" we place (IMHO) our love of our neighbor as taking the most prominent place in our affections.

---

quote:

---

Finally, in an excellent post, OgtheDim said:
Worship: The use of "She" in worship is jarring.
Why? Because we are, by and large, USED to God referred to as He.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by linzc:
Oh goodness, CM, this is horrifying!

We are left with the idea that whereas males are somehow a symbol of God in a way females are not. Why not go the whole hog and simply say that females do not possess the image of God, but only the image of the image of God??

---

Thank you for this!!

Never mind all the folks, over the last few thousand years, who've thought exactly that. Or worse, that we're instruments of Satan, meant to take you guys off the holy path.
 

---

Posted by godspagan (# 513) on :
 
Lincz wrote:
But surely this (along with the rest of your post) rests on the assumption that men are 'about' service to a lord etc, and women 'about' serving peers, relatiopnship etc. This assumption is IMO a cultural one and as our culture has significantly changed, the type of theological alignment you have suggested does not in fact occur for contemporary people.

By no means. What I am saying is that "men" and "women" are also metaphors (living metaphors rather than literary metaphors) just as "Jesus" is/was a living metaphor for "God".

Recall that the Second Great Commandment is not "inferior" to the First Great Commandment. It is "like unto the First".

Remember also that Scripture is all about metaphor. The point of Jonah is not that anyone who runs away from God is gonna be swallowed up by a whale. The point is that it is pointless to try to run away from God.

The point of Adam and Eve is not that men are supposed to be priests and serve God, while women are supposed to be handmaidens and foot washers. The point is that love of God and love of mankind should be bound together seamlessly as "bone of my bone" and "flesh of my flesh".

In His use of the living metaphors of Adam and Eve, God displays to His people His intention that love of God and love of mankind should be seamlessly "woven" in their essentials ("tantric love"), as should husband and wives be woven together, in "tantric" love, which action, makes new the Creation. That is what (IMHO) the "Bride of Christ" imagery is all about. It is the healing of the broken Creation by reweaving in tantric love, love of God, and love of His Creation in the metaphors of the Lamb and His Church.

Shari

Shari
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Linzc

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Concerning cosmologies .... I doubt whether any cosmology will emerge which compromises God's transcendence of which refers to the Cosmos as "God's Body" or generated "out of God." God's creation activity is extrinsic to himself ... seminal not conceptional.

The reference to nominalism was to highlight the current tendency to play with language with only a loose adherence to the revelatory data ... Whatever happens to the language, such beliefs as the Trinity and the Incarnation should never be compromised.
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by linzc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Can any woman seriously say that "peace to men of good will" ever meant that Jesus only redeemed males?!

---

Perhaps you would be surprised how such phrases actually sound to younger people who are used to inclusive language in other areas of their life.

---

quote:

---

For us men and for our salvation...

---

.

I am not a man. I am not part of men. I don't use the word mankind as a label for the human race. I am a humna, and a woman as a subset of that, and arguing that mankind is an ok term because 'everyone knows that it doesn't really mean just men' is like using the term 'learning disabled' to describe those with any tyoe of disability - after all, it describes half the group, and it's got the word disabled in there...

Viki
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Sorry to be horrifying, but it's certainly not intended to be. Perhaps if we make a distinction between masculinity and femininity in their abstract "chemical purity" -- which, note, we never truly encounter within Creation, just by virtue of its being on an earthly level -- and individual men and women as human beings. Just as one can also look at earthly rulers, on the one hand, as the head of the state and as a symbol of God's authority and as a sinful human being for whom Christ died, no more or less likely to be holy than a beggar, we may look at the masculine aspects of men and the feminine aspects of women as symbols of God and of Creation/the Church, respectively -- without saying that men are holier than women, or any such nonsense.
 

---

Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
Sarkycow
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 

quote:

---

Why not go the whole hog and simply say that females do not possess the image of God, but only the image of the image of God??

---

quote:

---

I am not a man. I am not part of men. I don't use the word mankind as a label for the human race. I am a humna, and a woman as a subset of that

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:


Whatever happens to the language, such beliefs as the Trinity and the Incarnation should never be compromised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeke:
Matt, are you trying to be inflammatory? Just because we have a male-oriented language, I see no need to butcher it by changing all the words to negate that, as some well-meaning feminists have attempted to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by godspagan:
By no means. What I am saying is that "men" and "women" are also metaphors (living metaphors rather than literary metaphors) just as "Jesus" is/was a living metaphor for "God".

Recall that the Second Great Commandment is not "inferior" to the First Great Commandment. It is "like unto the First".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Concerning cosmologies .... I doubt whether any cosmology will emerge which compromises God's transcendence of which refers to the Cosmos as "God's Body" or generated "out of God." God's creation activity is extrinsic to himself ... seminal not conceptional.

---

quote:

---

The reference to nominalism was to highlight the current tendency to play with language with only a loose adherence to the revelatory data ... Whatever happens to the language, such beliefs as the Trinity and the Incarnation should never be compromised.

---

quote:

---

CM said:
...we may look at the masculine aspects of men and the feminine aspects of women as symbols of God and of Creation/the Church, respectively -- without saying that men are holier than women, or any such nonsense.

---

quote:

---

MMM said:
"But for a man it is not right to have his head covered, since he is the image of God and reflects God's glory; but a woman is the reflection of man's glory. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" 1 Corinthians 11v7

I often find it amusing to think what people's reaction would be if Paul showed up and started posting on Ship Of Fools...

---

quote:

---

Right..so you consider yourself a woman right? The word "WO-MAN" meaning..."out of man"?? Seems to me rather subserviant and demeaning to me, far worse than being "Man".....
Maybe female would me better...oh no wait...FE-MALE...same problem. Oops.

---

quote:

---

Arch- said, archly:
Our beliefs concerning such concepts as The Trinity and the Incarnation are always compromised by the language we use, language in its broadest sense of explanation and description. Indeed, without language, the concepts themselves wouldn't exist.

---

Good use of language there Arch-!
 

---

Posted by MCC (# 3137) on :
 

quote:

---

[B]Except in church where each Sunday the congregation dutifully prayed:[/B
For us men and for our salvation...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCC:
Seriously, God is above gender. What we are talking about is how we address the infinite, ultimately mysterious, the creating and underlying spirit of all existence which is beyond understanding, and certainly beyond gender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr G.

You can't chop and change labels in a nominalist manner without eroding the infrastructure of Orthodox belief ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

[B]***snip***[/B}
I often find it amusing to think what people's reaction would be if Paul showed up and started posting on Ship Of Fools...

matt

---

Well...as some of us think Paul was, for his era, rather more liberal about women then the average Jewish/Roman/Greek Male, you may be shocked too Matt.

But...that's another thread.
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
[quote[So go on Matt, do you actually hold to the philosophical position implied by that quote taken out of context? Do you see women as only a 'copy of a copy'? Put your money where your mouth is...[/quote]

I object to the word "only" preceeding "copy of a copy".

quote:

---

The fact that our language is rather bad at gender neutral descriptions hardly gives you a right to criticise Sarkycow for the way she feels happy referring to herself and her gender.

---

If you read back up the thread you will see Sarkycow took the first personal swipe I give as good as I get. I took her "single minded" jibe as a "friendly metaphorical poke" and return in kind!

To answer your question, my point was this:

Words are arbitary combinations of letters (when written down) or sounds (when spoken) which act as a label for a concept.

It so happens that in english, as in many other languages the same label can be applied to two concepts. Sometimes the concepts are different enough for this to not cause confusion, but when the two concepts are closely related it gets confusing.

The word man has two meanings. If you look them up in a dictionary, they are listed as two seperate meanings.

1.) Noun for male of the homo sapien species and 2) collective noun for homo sapiens.

Sarkycow chooses to jibe at the second sense of the word because she chooses to read this as the first sense.

Grammatically, if one removes the emotive aspect from her argument this makes little more sense than objecting to calling the stuff than drops through your letter box "post" because a "post" is what holds up fences.

I appreciate her objection would be that the useage of "man" can be interchangable in a sentence while "post" cannot, but in fact, correct useage would be subtly different. Take "Man cannot live by bread alone". If this was intended to refer exclusively to the male of the gender, then it should be "Men cannot live by bread alone" or "A man cannot live by bread alone".

My point in referring to the word "WOman" was simply that if she wants to get particular about the details of these arbitary labels, then the alternatives are scarcely any better.

Although that's not to say the emotive aspects of the arguement aren't important of course.

matt
 

---

Posted by Birdie (# 2173) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
[quote[So go on Matt, do you actually hold to the philosophical position implied by that quote taken out of context? Do you see women as only a 'copy of a copy'? Put your money where your mouth is...

---

I object to the word "only" preceeding "copy of a copy".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arch-:
Indeed, without language, the concepts themselves wouldn't exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OgtheDim:
Well...as some of us think Paul was, for his era, rather more liberal about women then the average Jewish/Roman/Greek Male, you may be shocked too Matt.

---

quote:

---

but surely you don't mean that concepts and perceptions of reality are inextricably linked to language? What about mystical visions which the recipient cannot put into words?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracia:
from ChastMastr:

quote:

---

but surely you don't mean that concepts and perceptions of reality are inextricably linked to language? What about mystical visions which the recipient cannot put into words?

---

I have to disagree with you, CM. Concepts really are linked to language.
Mystical visions are direct, interior experience - beyond senses and language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
I often find it amusing to think what people's reaction would be if Paul showed up and started posting on Ship Of Fools...

matt

---

I see no reason why Paul wouldn't continue doing precisely what he did it in his own day:

- took the Biblical scholarship of the time and learnt from it (though what he'd make of the second half of the Christian Bible is anyone's guess!);
- ditto, the philosophical thought systems of the time, using familiar cultural metaphors to describe his own ideas about Jesus and God, thus avoiding the reifying and petrifying of culture-bound language and image;
- pushed the envelope where women and inclusivity of other 'outsiders' was concerned;
- continue developing and developing his theology, allowing his experience and deepening reason to progressively affect his dogmatic approach to formulating new Christian doctrine.

Actually, Matt, far from finding it 'amusing' I suspect most people would find it not only challenging but also horrifying. Just as many were, back in Paul's day......
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Sarkycow.....Sorry it has taken so long to reply to your kind words earlier:

quote:

---

GAH! Are you really poor at reading for meaning, or just so one-minded and limited in your thoughts that you can only say the same thing over and over?

---

In general, reading for meaning is fine, but in a discussion precisely about words and what we mean when we use them (in this case "he" and "she") being exceptionally rigorous seems appropriate.

As to being one-minded..Should I be double-minded then? (James 1v8)

quote:

---

Christ used many pictures to explain God, the kindgom of Heaven, disciples, prayer (which is where your particular example is coming from) etc. He made many statements about sin, prayer, commandments, morals etc.

---

quote:

---

Seeing as you take the model/example for prayer to be literal, then once again I ask: How many limbs are you missing? Or do you not sin? The Lord's prayer is an example prayer. Jesus said 'When you pray, do it like this:

---

quote:

---

I would also argue that masculinity (not our humanity per se) reflects certain aspects of God in ways that femininity (not our humanity per se) does not (apart from the above postulation of femininity reflecting the Son within the Trinity), femininity reflecting Creation itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
To argue that in this case for some mysterious reason Christ conformed to the culture seems strangely arbitary.

---

I'd also add the apostles, Paul, etc. who were, unless we disbelieve them, getting direct instruction from the Almighty fairly clearly (visions, voices, etc.) very early on, so if we're going to attribute cultural bias to them, why in Heaven's name would God neglect to correct them the rest of the way on such important matters as how to conceive of or speak to Him? "Oh, and by the way, while you let those Gentiles (whom I've officially declared can be made clean now) in, don't forget..."

(And how do we know it's not our own age which is biased? Yes, we only have our own lenses to look through -- which is why I think learning more of the past is wise, and checking our knowledge against the witness of history -- and when it comes to changing things which are not only dating back the last thousand years, but the entire history of the Church -- and before that, Judaism -- and apart from that, the whole Pagan male-rulers-of-the-pantheon which seems pretty universal -- well, then in that case it really does seem to me as if to see God as non-masculine goes against all of humankind up till very, very recently -- and that I can't do...)

Gah, sorry for the impromptu sermonette.

David
" " orthodox guy
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
OgtheDim said:

quote:

---

Well...as some of us think Paul was, for his era, rather more liberal about women then the average Jewish/Roman/Greek Male, you may be shocked too Matt.

---

quote:

---

I see no reason why Paul wouldn't continue doing precisely what he did it in his own day:
*snip*
- pushed the envelope where women and inclusivity of other 'outsiders' was concerned;

---

As someone said, this is really for another thread, and if someone wants to start it feel welcome.

In summary, both these comments seem to have behind them the assumption that what was really important about Paul's teaching was not the actual position he took on issues, but the direction his views weremoving compared to standard prevailing cultral views of the day.

ie. The unspoken logic of the argument goes something like "Paul's position with respect to women was liberal compared to the prevailing view of the 1st century culture, therefore Paul was intrinsically "a liberal", therefore he would be on the liberal end of the cultral spectrum today".

This is called relativism and it begs the question "was Paul a relativist?". I emphatically think he was not, but if someone wants to start thread on that it might be interesting.

Incidently..Birdie-I had absolutely no problem with your "dangerous voice" comment! and no apology was neccessary. You were being slightly pre-emptive of my position, but quite understandably.I have no hesitation in saying women are made in the image of God just as much as men are. I thought last post was brilliant by the way.

matt
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Yipes! Feel like I'm in a race (gasp! Must -- post -- before -- I have more replies to reply to... gasp! Choke!) .

Re voice: *hug* Thank you! No problem. Yes, I do admit there has been genuine sexism (Gasp!) in the church which makes standing for the doctrines I believe in kind of embarrassing and frustrating (see my continual litany on the pristly genitalia thread). Unfortunately I am stuck with still believing it to be true.

I do think many women find this distinction more difficult than men, but again I do think it's because of the way genuinely misogynist people have approached the whole thing. If it is possible to apologise on behalf of those of us who believe the way I do for the inappropriate ways this has been dealt with in the past, I apologise for it.

Yes, I think the way the whole "image of an image" thing is treated isn't very good -- even if true it does not lead to the conclusions people reach. For example, where one is morally in relation to God has nothing directly to do with their place in the Chain of Being -- Lucifer was, well, the highest and greatest of the angels originally, and where is he now? Mother Theresa of Calcutta, compared with (say) some of the more decadent Popes, was not even ordained a priest, yet is pretty much agreed to be on the fast track to canonisation, and with good reason. And of course the Christian understanding of our relationship to God isn't supposed to be focused as much on what our natural abilities are (apart from being grateful for them, or asking for help in doing better with them) but on love. When asked about who gets the higher places in Heaven, Jesus said the last would be first, and the first would be last, etc. So if someone's putting on airs about being male then they're heading in exactly the wrong direction... and our "nearness" to God is meant to be, not the natural instance of our birth but on a spiritual level.

But I do think, yes, there's a distinction between being human (and therefore made in God's image) and being male/female. In a sense, as I've posted elsewhere, all Creation is "feminine" in relation to God.

I do think in a sense femininity does reflect aspects of the Second Person of the Trinity in relation to the First; but I am seeing this in terms of yin and yang, hierarchy and obedience, etc. which I hadn't wanted to get into as much here.

Perhaps if I say that in our humanity we all reflect Him and are made in His image ("In His image He made them; male and female He created them"); but in our gender roles, especially within the family, we are meant to reflect Him in ways which (which I think are going to offend some people but I've posted this before and it does tie in with all this) deal with hierarchy, obedience, sacrificial love, and more, in the sexual act and in the bearing of fruit (children), etc.

Re women and the "other": Well -- in an odd way I'd say that God is the ultimate "other" -- and perhaps part of the problem is of men (male human beings) being too presumptuous in the way they treat such matters. I.e., if they imagine that God is just "one of the guys" Who shakes His head at women (various jokes about this sort of thing abound), rather than trying to look to Him as their own Bridegroom -- as the ultimate Other to Whom we are all, male and female, "feminine" -- then they have a surprise or two waiting.

Oh dear, I'm sure about three dozen more people have posted since I wrote this. I hope it's not too incoherent.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

ie. The unspoken logic of the argument goes something like "Paul's position with respect to women was liberal compared to the prevailing view of the 1st century culture, therefore Paul was intrinsically "a liberal", therefore he would be on the liberal end of the cultral spectrum today".

This is called relativism and it begs the question "was Paul a relativist?". I emphatically think he was not, but if someone wants to start thread on that it might be interesting.

matt

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

***Snipped out bits Matt was quoting (how many quotes do we want in here, eh? ***

In summary, both these comments seem to have behind them the assumption that what was really important about Paul's teaching was not the actual position he took on issues, but the direction his views were moving compared to standard prevailing cultral views of the day.

---

quote:

---

I often find it amusing to think what people's reaction would be if Paul showed up and started posting on Ship Of Fools...

---

As you seem to be amused by what people on the Ship's views would be relative to Paul's, I find your logic a little puzzling as to rejecting how others would find amusing the picture of you also having to deal with the enigma known as Paul.

However...this is all tangential.
[Note to Admins; this is where I like to put in a Joy emoticon to signal joy at the whole thread, including the tangent; but...I can't anymore... ]

Ultimately, Matt, what I find rather illuminating vis-a-vis my OP is your claim that Paul would support your position now because he would have supported it then. As you imply you are not a relativist, its hard to see how you would WANT to look at the use of the 3rd person female pronoun. As some of us take a diametrically opposite views as to the role of scripture and the Holy Spirit in a changing world, there seems to be an impasse here hard to get beyond.

However, Matt, your views have been very interesting to read through. Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
There's clearly a lot more potentially interesting discussion in the whole "21st century paul" thing, but if we wanna take that further it should really be a new thread I think.

One thing I don't think I've said that I should, is that obviously, during the history of the church, the masculine association with God has been misused to exclude women or assert dominance over them. Clearly at times it's been unhelpful.

However, there are numerous things it would probably have been easier if God hadn't done. Like the last supper...if only Jesus hadn't done that whole "this is my body" thing, we wouldn't have the discord over issues like transubstantiation.

A lot of posts in this thread seem to be along the lines of "I find it easier to....." or "it would be helpful if.." and in many cases I agree, but I'm not sure the way forward for our theology is based upon what we find helpful in a religion which claims to be an account of the facts above any claim it may make to being helpful to us as individuals.

matt
 

---

Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
Birdie!
BTW, for your work with sexual abuse, you might track down the book "Survivor Prayers". Alternative images, and lots of honesty. And bless you for your work!

CM wrote:

and apart from that, the whole Pagan male-rulers-of-the-pantheon which seems pretty universal -- well, then in that case it really does seem to me as if to see God as non-masculine goes against all of humankind up till very, very recently

Er…um…(choke)…(splutter)

A tiny sampler:

Inanna—“Queen of Heaven”, Sumeria
Spider—Creatrix, in many cultures
Tiamat—Creatrix. Babylon
All-Mother—Creatrix, Australian Aborigines
Grandmother Growth—Creatrix, Huichol people, Mexico
Coatlique—Mother (of deities and people), Aztec people, Mexico
Rhea—Universal Mother, Aegean region

Many goddesses who are now seen as subservient to gods weren’t always that way. They changed with the transition to patriarchy. Mainstream mythology and history often don’t look that far back.

BTW, in many cultures, the sun is feminine—e.g., Amaterasu in Japan.

You might want to read:

“When God Was A Woman”—Merlin Stone

Any of Dr. Marijah Gimbutas’ works

“Heart of the Goddess”—Hallie Iglehart Austen

“Mother Wove the Morning”—Carol Lynn Pearson

“The Chalice & the Blade”—Riane Eisler

“She Who Is”---Elizabeth A. Johnson (Christian theological perspective)
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
"Ruler of the pantheon" and "creatrix" are not the same, though in monotheism it's kind of inevitable. When you refer to the "transition to patriarchy," when did this specifically take place?

(In any case, I look to the Pagan past not as a primary source, Radical Faerie though I am; I'm a Christian first and foremost.)

David
 

---

Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
When you refer to the "transition to patriarchy," when did this specifically take place?

Over a long stretch of time. You'd be best off checking the works of Dr. Gimbutas and Riane Eisler, as I mentioned above.

(In any case, I look to the Pagan past not as a primary source, Radical Faerie though I am; I'm a Christian first and foremost.)

Um, you're the one who brought up Pagan history. I just provided info.
 

---

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
A lot of posts in this thread seem to be along the lines of "I find it easier to....." or "it would be helpful if.." and in many cases I agree, but I'm not sure the way forward for our theology is based upon what we find helpful in a religion which claims to be an account of the facts above any claim it may make to being helpful to us as individuals.

---

quote:

---

Even if we conceed for the sake of argument the rather bald statement that Christianity claims to be an account of the facts, surely that doesn't impact the point at issue here. I hope MMM that you are not claiming that it is a fact that God is a Father? What is a fact is that Christ and various male NT writers felt that the metaphor of God as Father was a helpful one for their listeners/readers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
In a sense it may be kind of metaphor, but in a very different way to, say, a metaphor of God as the sower of seed as he is in some of the parables, or as the master of servants as he is in others. It is a metaphor that runs so deep in God's nature that Jesus refers to it as the reality of God is, not a reflection or impression of Him. Jesus never treats "The Father" like a metaphor, but as a reality.

---

quote:

---

As to it being a rather bald statement to say Christianity is an account of the facts, I consider it the starting point of any meaningful basis of Christianity. As Paul said, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith". Christianity stands or falls as an account of the facts. If true we should accept them whether we like them or not, if false we should reject Christianity no matter how helpful or appealing it may be. 1 Corinthians 15v14. I may differ with another Christian on the details of the facts, or interpretation of their implications, but if I find myself in discussion with someone who believes Christianity is really a philosophy first before being factual, then there is precious little common ground between us.

---

quote:

---

Oh, come on! In what possible sense can it not be a metaphor. A father is a human who provides half of the genetic material for the conception of another human; a father is the long-term partner of the mother who gives birth to a new human; a father is the male who nurtures, protects and teaches a young human till they are able to live independently. God is none of these.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by golden key:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
When you refer to the "transition to patriarchy," when did this specifically take place?

Over a long stretch of time. You'd be best off checking the works of Dr. Gimbutas and Riane Eisler, as I mentioned above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by linzc:
And CM, perhaps we simply must agree to disagree but I cannot possibly stomach any theology, however subtle or nuanced which sees males/masculinity as fundamentally more representative of God's nature than female/femininity, nor do I believe that such a view coheres with Scripture taken as a whole.

---

quote:

---

As to it being a rather bald statement to say Christianity is an account of the facts, I consider it the starting point of any meaningful basis of Christianity.

---

quote:

---

May I suggest that the reverse is true? That it is earth which is a pale reflection of heaven?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Heaven, in "The Gladiator" is vague, shadowy. The colours are washed out and faded. The whole thing has the feel of being a pale imitation of real life.

The reason is that I think we all have a natural intution to feel that the world we are in now is solid, real and vibrant, and that the "spiritual world" is vague and fluid. I can't help feeling that underpinning your comments is something similar to this philosophy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by linzc:
You see the point which I think you're missing is that language is itself a human construct rather than divine. So ISTM that 'father' which is a human word has specific human meanings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Does anyone know whether Jesus uses more than one term for Father?

I know he uses "abba", which is most closely equivalent to "daddy" - an intimate term used by children. Does he also use a more formal term for father - which would presumably have implied references to such things as authority, inheritance, ancestry. [snip]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
So in a sense, lincz, what you are saying is that by calling God "father" we are really saying "more than father", "better than father", and doing so in a language that is of our own making, and so which cannot in any sense be adequate to capture "God". Of course, in a larger way, then, many of our concept words are metaphoric. What is "love"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
How do we know this? More specifically, how do we know that those words have not been allowed, permitted, encouraged, or directed by God in order to help us understand Him better?

---

quote:

---

Then daisymay said:
I think God is the true Father and Mother of us all. Any mothering or fathering we do or talk about is only an echo, a shadow of the real parenting of God. Ours is also real, but in a weaker way, because we are human.

Other pictures, metaphors, similes, symbols, stories, also add to our understanding of who God is, what God is like. We need them all to build up a truer picture of God - and meanwhile we are also experiencing a relationship with God, so we are getting to know God experientially as well as intellectually.

---

Agreed.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by linzc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
How do we know this? More specifically, how do we know that those words have not been allowed, permitted, encouraged, or directed by God in order to help us understand Him better?

---

This seems highly unlikely CM. Is it only the Greek or Hebrew words which are so allowed, permitted, encouraged or directed? Or a bunch of words in every human language that has ever existed? And what about cases where the concepts in one language do not adequately translate from other languages? Perhaps we should be starting the Lord's Prayer "Dear Daddy".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by golden key:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
When you refer to the "transition to patriarchy," when did this specifically take place?

Over a long stretch of time. You'd be best off checking the works of Dr. Gimbutas and Riane Eisler, as I mentioned above.

---

Is this within history or in a (hypothetical?) prehistory? The arguments I have heard thus far for a matriarchal prehistory have been less than convincing to me, I'm sorry to say.

---

There's been lots of research into both history and prehistory. I have Riane Eisler's book here, with charts and cited references. As for Dr. Gimbutas (archaeologist, BTW), background infor on her and her work is here. Much more elsewhere on the Net.
 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Those who were discussing the inadequacy of the single word "love" might wish to check out a book by C.S.Lewis(him again!)called "The Four Loves." It deals with the four different words for love found in Greek.

He occasionally infuriates me with his sexist statements but is of course excellent in many other ways.
 

---

Posted by Melissa (# 3443) on :
 
I went to a local presbyterian church here for work this morning and was so excited to find something in bulletin they printed about Inclusive Language and thought I would share--

"In the language of worship at The First and Franklin Street Presbyterian Church we try to be faithful to two realities. First, we were created both male and female, in God's image. God is neither exclusively male nor exclusively female, and does not favor one sex over the other. Second, the tradional, usually male-centered language of the church, incomplete as it its, links us with many generations of the faithful, and has a claim on our respect. Accordingly, we strive to balance traditional images with new ones which challenge us to see the manifold nature of God in creative ways."

I think that I was in awe when I saw it in the bulletin. It really seems like a good approach to me.
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
It also seems to me that, if "father" carried with it all sorts of other meanings in the first century, and we're trying to make those meanings clearer in the cultural context we have now, then we're largely going to have to bring back, or explain, those older meanings, because in our egalitarian age, we don't think in terms of hierarchy, authority, obedience, etc. In the same way, if "father" meant many things which were taken for granted in the first century, but which are not now, then we're going to have to do research to find them out and put them in modern terms.

---

(Bold mine.)

The word 'exactly' comes to mind. In the first century, saying "God is a woman, a mother," meant "God is someone who can't enter the inner areas of the temple; does the housework; looks after the children; cannot own anything; can be sent away summarily by us; is intrinsically unholy and in fact unclean once a month; etc.". By saying "God is a man, a father," the meaning is "God is someone who can enter the temple; owns property, people, animals, etc.; is clean and holy; is in control; has worth and value and what He says matters; etc.".

In a similar way, Paul(?) declares that we are all "Sons and co-heirs of the kingdom of God." I think he even specifies that includes women as well as men. He doesn't say that because boys are better than girls, or because women will one day be made perfect by becoming men. In the first century, only sons could inherit. However, a man could adopt a son, and the adopted son could inherit everything, cutting the natural son out (if the father so wished). So Paul is using the idea that like an earthly property owner could 9at that time) adopt a son, and pass everything to him, so God adopts us, and we become heirs and inheritors of the kingdom of God.

So Cm, you are right - The terms 'father' and 'mother', in the first century had many different connotations to now, and this dictated which Jesus and the NT writers used. We need to explore what the words meant, and so find terms which mean similar things in our time and culture. Today 'mother' and 'father' are much more equal than in the first century, and we need to reflect this. Parrot-fashioned bleating that "Jesus used a specific term in a specific time and culture, and so we must use that even though all connotations and meanings have changed," cannot and should not wash now. Similarly, arguing that the bits which support your view are literal and must be adhered to, whilst claiming that points which do not back up your view are meant metaphorically and so can be ignored is intellectually dishonest.

Viki
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Matt - I had a interesting series of thoughts this evening, whilst at Communion, re God being Jesus' father, and hence male.

For the purpose of the incarnation of Jesus, God could not be female. This is due to our phycial make up - the man impregnates, and the woman carries the foetus. God physically couldn't have used a human male as father, and so taken the mother role (carrying foetus to term).

If Jesus had been incarnated as a seahorse, to seek and save them, then things would have been different. The female fertilises the egg, and the male carries it to term. There, God would have been physically unable to be male, as a male seahorse would have been needed to carry the Jesus foetus to term. And seahorses would have been having this debate in reverse, with the dominant viewpoint being God is female, and why can't you males all accept that, and we're not really being sexist when we use our gender to stand as shorthand for everyone, after all, the dictionary lists that usage of it, so it must be ok.

I hope, were the situations reversed, that I would argue as passionately that both sexes are equal, and God is neither one nor t'other, but beyond gender. I have the feeling that you would not be arguing so passionately for the traditional view if it were that God were female, with you being male still.

Viki
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
(Triple posting )

Sorry, I forgot about this thread for a while

Thanks golden_key for the not worthy

And some great posts by linzc and golden_key, not to mention birdie

Viki
 

---

Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by OgtheDim:
[QB

I want to know if people can rationalise or theologise the idea of referring to God as She, or, in the possessive form, Her.[/QB]

---

I should imagine that She is wondering why on earth we are making such a meal out of the attribution of an animal sexual gender to a Being that is transcendent...
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sarkycow:
Similarly, arguing that the bits which support your view are literal and must be adhered to, whilst claiming that points which do not back up your view are meant metaphorically and so can be ignored is intellectually dishonest.

---

I don't believe I am doing anything like that, and if you are accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, doesn't that belong in Hell?
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Please also note that I am predicating my arguments, whether they are valid or invalid, on the material itself insofar as I can perceive it, and not on the gender of my opponents, which would be the argument ad hominem. If in some way I have attributed any kind of intellectual dishonesty to any of you with whom I disagree, I am heartily sorry and I do apologise, but I do not believe in doing that except in the most extreme cases -- and even then I am not sure I have the moral right to. Perhaps you did not mean to accuse me of willful ignorance, and if that is the case, then I am glad to know, but I honestly believe this calls for an apology. Being accused of lying to myself is pretty much of the worst things I can be accused of in my view; considering that I am literally, desperately trying to find arguments in favour of women's ordination down in Dead Horses, I don't believe I am being willfully, selfishly, maliciously blind to the truth.

I'm sorry, but this makes me angry.
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
Melissa,

That was wonderful...Thank you for the quoation.

(because...well there still isn't a JOY emoticon you know)
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
My apologies for getting angry. That was an inappropriate response, and I formally let go of resentment relating to that now.

I do think accusing one's opponents of intellectual dishonesty is inappropriate for a courteous debate, and I stand by my statements relating to that.

Addressing the actual content of your post, Sarkycow, you say that

quote:

---

The terms 'father' and 'mother', in the first century had many different connotations to now, and this dictated which Jesus and the NT writers used.

---

quote:

---

We need to explore what the words meant, and so find terms which mean similar things in our time and culture.

---

quote:

---

Today 'mother' and 'father' are much more equal than in the first century, and we need to reflect this.

---

quote:

---

Parrot-fashioned bleating

---

Baa, humbug. So there. A sheep shot, but I like Polly-morphic perversity. But yes, actually, I am trying to be an obedient sheep (albeit an intelligent, thinking one) -- and if I must recite traditional notions as if I were a parrot (though I hope I am thinking about them more than that) then so be it. "We believe in one God, the Father almighty" etc.

I don't bear you ill-will but this was not necessary. Going to move on now.

quote:

---

that "Jesus used a specific term in a specific time and culture, and so we must use that even though all connotations and meanings have changed," cannot and should not wash now.

---

quote:

---

Similarly, arguing that the bits which support your view are literal and must be adhered to, whilst claiming that points which do not back up your view are meant metaphorically and so can be ignored

---

Well, as I genuinely believe my view to be correct, or at least closer to the truth, then obviously some things which do not seem to support it will seem less relevant. Some people may say that Scripture is interpreted literally, but that when Jesus says that the bread and wine are His Body and Blood, He speaks metaphorically, because they believe on doctrinal grounds that it is not literal -- I think they are misinterpreting this, but I do not think they are doing so dishonestly. I think a lot of this depends on what we take as the grounds for our beliefs; in my case, Christian Tradition is the lens through which I try to understand Scripture, with side sources of Jewish Tradition (which I also try to understand in light of Jesus' coming as the foretold Messiah) and Pagan Tradition (which provides a general human backdrop to it all). And I try to assemble it all together with my Reason as best I can. I don't tend to think very highly of arguments predicated on the idea that all of these people were simply wrong for most of human history and we suddenly have it right. (This is why, if certain things could be proven to me (on other threads), it would solve certain arguments very quickly -- say if it were proven that women were ordained to the priesthood and the practise was only stopped after several centuries, in the same way that Roman Catholic priests were allowed to be married for some time in the early Church -- and that Orthodoxy never stopped it -- then I could accept female priests as valid with no problem whatsoever. Even now I am almost convinced to accept it, but it is very difficult and I am trying not to do so on the grounds that it would win me more friends, that it would be convenient, that I would be less frustrated when a visiting female priest serves at the altar, etc. But I cannot, must not, allow myself to be convinced for selfish, slanted motives. But accepting female priests is not the same issue as accepting a notion of God, in my honest opinion.)

No offence is meant in any of this. I know how it must sound, to be male and argue for this. But my gender does not change the arguments one whit, as far as I am concerned. Gay jokes aside, it also doesn't change the notion of all creation, including myself, as feminine in relation to God. I even see the notion of Creation-as-feminine as supporting, though not permitting worship of, the existence of a kind fo "Earth Mother" -- we are told that "All Creation groans in travail" like an expectant mother, and I see much to support this idea, from Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis to old (and recent) Pagan beliefs. It cuts both ways and I have to face that wherever it takes me, however popular or unpopular it makes me here or anywhere else. This does mean I can simultaneously please and piss off people from all sorts of points of view, including ones closely allied with (but not identical to) mine, but I am stuck with it whether I like it or not.

Most sincerely,

David
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
CM --you are right when it comes to "King" -- the concept doesn't make sense to many people, so we do need to find additional ways of expressing what scriptures say about the "king-ness" of God. That is an argument in favour of finding feminine (and other) imagery to add to our existing almost entirely masculine imagery for God. it is not an argument against this (and if I have misunderstood your point, I am sorry).

The truths are indeed eternal, and should not be modified to take account of current fads. But we have to be able to express them today in words that will be understood. If the good news is for all people, as I believe, it is unconscionable to use language that excludes some because they can't make the mental leap back 2 millennia, or don't have the education to understand 19th century language.

It is human and understandable to want a single, universal and unchanging expression of the truth. We have to get over that, and accept new expressions to sit alongside the old ones.

John Holding
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Um... actually, no, my point was that to understand these properly in a modern age we need to try to get into the mindset of the "archaic" world because the modern era does not supply the basic concepts. I.e., "non-democratically-elected rightful person in charge who has ultimate power over people, who should obey this person without question and with a smile on their face when they do it" sounds perfectly horrible to many people. We didn't elect God to be Creator Of All That Is. So in my mind, unless we at least try to understand "what a king is all about" without assuming it to be a Bad Thing, then we're not going to make much headway, whatever words we try to use. Not to mention the question of whether the traditional notions of kingship, gender etc. or the modern ones are more true in themselves. It seems to me that to say "we have to use modern terms," even when they exclude the very notions I am saying I believe are true, puts us -- in my opinion -- at the mercy of something not unlike Orwell's Newspeak. If it is intrinsic to the modern mindset that unelected rulers are a Bad Thing, how can we express this except by a negative image with a disclaimer? "God is the Dictator of Dictators and... erm... only, well, not like all the others we deplore..." (Would we carry this further and say that if someone were in the world of 1984, they would be forced to call God "the Big Brother of Big Brothers"?)

It may be argued that the traditional understanding of God (not merely metaphors or symbols, as I argue above) is just as limiting; but I and some other traditionalists believe He has specifically given them to us. We don't believe it was our idea, nor that we have the power to change what we understand to be His Nature, or our own gendered nature, for that matter. Some of this has to do with more than just our understanding of God -- it also has to do with our understanding of gender, which is where some of the difficulty comes in in finding common ground on this matter.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth of Tenth Street (# 3555) on :
 
I know quite a few people who won't use a pronoun for God at all. They just say "God" in all contexts. I agree with that, even if it can make sentences grammatically awkward. I don't believe God is literally male of female.
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
CM - I am so sorry. I lost my first post, and so tried to retype it all as I remembered it. I didn't quite suceed

The comment

quote:

---

Parrot-fashioned bleating that "Jesus used a specific term in a specific time and culture, and so we must use that even though all connotations and meanings have changed," cannot and should not wash now. Similarly, arguing that the bits which support your view are literal and must be adhered to, whilst claiming that points which do not back up your view are meant metaphorically and so can be ignored is intellectually dishonest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sarkycow:
CM - I am so sorry. I lost my first post, and so tried to retype it all as I remembered it. I didn't quite suceed

...

Once again, I apologise for not making this clear and so for attacking you for things you didn't say.

---

Thank you! *hug*

David
Current mood: busy at work -- no, wait, that's LiveJournal
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0