EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
|
There is much discussion today about masculine references to God. Questions arise as to why it is we always refer to God in a masculine way, when the fact is He is Spirit - neither sex. Some woman perhaps have felt like they are undervalued when God is constantly referred to as a "He." Some (men or women) suggest it's simply a cultural idea. It's said that in the times Scriptures were written men dominated society and therefore it would've been absurd to refer to God as a female. And some suggest today is different. And thus now only refer to God as a "She" - some in spite, but some simply feel more comfortable. Possibly more accepted. I recently had a very good and interesting conversation with someone that has a hard time with only masculine references. This person was to the point of frustration and, frankly, bitterness. This person preferred feminine references and only feminine references. Admittedly it was partially out of spite and to prove a point, but that's just where this person was. Which I appreciated the perspective and conversation. Personally I don't have an issue with God being referred to only in a masculine way. Maybe that's because I'm a guy, maybe it's because Scripture always refers to God in the masculine and I desire to stick with what Scripture says, or possibly it's because I'm just more comfortable (for whatever reason). My point is NOT to argue the situation, but out of curiosity to bring this up for discussion - because I'm interested in what you think. Either way you refer, clearly God is neither male or female as we understand the sexes. Scripture tells us God is Spirit, has no flesh and is who He says He is. So my curiosity and interest in this discussion leads me to ask 3 questions:
|
Comments
Opening to the feminine sides of God...Him who is mother, compassionate, gentle, nurturing...has radically transformed my interactions with Him. And personally, I don't have a hard time referring to God as "Him," because well, it's three letters, and that's all. Letters. References. Models. They represent a being beyond words and thus, are sideways energy for us to get tripped-up on.
Matthew 23:37 (NASB) "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
Hi Chuck - Thanks for bringing this topic up. I work with women every day in my ministry who are wrestling being brought up in a patriarchal church where they have been shunned and silenced. To them God looks more like Santa Claus. When you're a white male you are speaking from one of the highest privileges in the world. I understand that you are trying to start a dialogue, but the points you make draw attention to the need for this discussion. When everyone in the church who has authority looks like you, you always have something to reference and look too. Even images of Jesus look like you - a white male with blonde-ish hair. When a woman has been in a system of oppression and the physical representation (not always) is male, God can be a hard thing to wrap one's mind around if God is an older white guy.
All that to say, I have to disagree with your questions as a starting place. We need to be looking to God and asking how can I meet with You wholistically. How can we help others who have a wounded image of God heal? How can we introduce God to women in the church in a non-abusive way? Why aren't more women allowed to tell their stories to show a more complete picture of God's story?
God is not neither male or female - God is both - we are all made in the image of God which means that although God doesn't have a body, the Spirit fully embodies both masculine and feminine side. When we live in a culture that only preaches to one side of that spectrum and paints the other as less than, we are not honoring the complete image of God. I don't understand your point about bringing Satan up as we need to restore our images of God. Satan is a whole other cultural conversation of how we got to view Satan as we do (from Dante, etc.).
For me refering to God as She or just as Spirit has made me fall in love with God and accept more of myself because I am realizing more of who God is. It can be damaging to women, even though I appreciate you having the discussion when you say that this woman is calling God "She" out of bitterness and spite, when in fact it might be from a place of healing. Listening to women who have been hurt by the church might be the best place to start in this dialogue... sorry for the huge comment, but I'm coming off of a weekend of helping women restore their images of God.... (see my blog: http://www.conversantlife.com/relationships/please-stop-talking )
A great resource for men in this conversation is the writings of Richard Rohr, OFM. Rohr is a Franciscan who writes about male spirituality. www.cacradicalgrace.org. One important point he has made is the need for men to discover their feminine spirituality before they can develop an authentic male spirituality. Through this work we can discover the gender-full God who created us, female and male. I should also point out the significant influence of my wife (and theologian) in helping me form a deeper understanding of God.
hey kristin. thanks for your comment! i think it was very insightful and certainly heartfelt. thanks. but to clarify - i never specified the sex of the person i spoke with, you assumed it was a woman. also, i stated it was out of spite based on the admittance of the person i was talking with. that person actually said it was out of that - not healing. healing might come, but this person confessed it was out of spite - which is why i said it was "admittedly out of spite". anyway, hope that helps for your clarity.
While I am sympathetic to those who want to retain a more feminine view of God, I find it troubling for one reason: that's not how God revealed God's self.
Of course, I agree that God is neither male nor female and that he encompasses both genders (neither and both...heh), but that doesn't give us free reign to imagine him however we would like or in whatever way is most disarming for us. At the end of the day, we need to let God be who he says he is. Now, are there times when we need to deal with some issues as a result? Absolutely. But let's do that while embracing the fact that while God may have revealed himself as a "he" (for whatever reason), he is not like the "he" who hurt you.
As I was reading this post, I had the same thought as Kristin - whose observations are very good. It's not that God is NEITHER male or female because he is spirit, it's that he is BOTH the male and female natures, as we are all created in his image. A female image of God makes some people uncomfortable, but is referred to several times in Scripture (i.e. the hen and her chicks).
chuck, this conversation should not be just a matter of "preference." this is a sociological issue tied to linguistics (and words do matter). unfortunately, even the way that the conversation is framed here, there is underlying language that marginalizes those who refer to God in the feminine form. the only example that you give of a person who "prefers" to address God as "she" (whether that individual is male or female) is a negative one. your language suggests that those who have this "preference" are simply doing this to placate themselves.
i am not surprised that you do not have a problem with God as masculine. that is a sign of privilege. God as masculine has been (and is continued) to be used to oppress women and keep us in our place. much of our language is inherently violent towards women. it is difficult to see the conversation started by a male who does not give credit to this fact.
if God is neither male or female, we need to ask why our american and christian culture chooses to mainly affirm the masculine. we say that God possesses feminine attributes and then we say "don't act like such a girl" or "man up" specifically in reference to behaving in a more "rational/non-emotional" manner. to answer one of your questions, we need to refer to God in the feminine because we need to redeem the attributes of compassion, harmony and emotion.
thank you kristin, paul and jan for your comments. we have a long way to go in this conversation. i acknowledge that i have a limited perspective and yet there is so much more that could be said. there are entire departments within institutions of higher ed devoted to this discussion. and in the end, chuck, i do not assume anything about your actual position on this topic. i mainly want to challenge the message that we are all sending with our words.
jenny, thanks for your comments. you are correct - God is BOTH. it could've been more beneficial for me to write "BOTH" rather than "Neither." My thought in writing what i did (neither) was that we tend to conform Him to what we think as "male" or "female" rather than accepting He is who He is. You state that you think we ought to refer to God in the feminine, which i respect. i'm wondering, and strictly out of curiosity, how you would answer the question about Satan...? do you only refer to Satan in the masculine, and if so why? thanks for joining me in this conversation - i find it fascinating and fun.
Maybe one reason we don't refer to Satan in the female form is because he is a created being? Male and female were birthed out of the I Am, so He must encompass all the positive humans attribute to the genders (i.e. women as nurturing, compassionate, gentle; men as strong, courageous, etc.) which is why He, in the end, can't be locked down to male only.* But Satan was created with a distinct role and nature. Perhaps the angels are all male, in some form of the idea of "maleness." Really, in the end, you cannot compare God and Satan when asking this question, since one is Creator and the other is creature.
*Though I agree with someone else's comment that God often represents Himself as male (Jesus was a man...God the Father) so we should refer to Him as such, I don't think people are totally off the mark if they refer to God in feminine terms, since one of the most important distinctions He gave Himself was as the "I Am" which is neither male nor female. We're so limited by language, as much freedom as it brings us.
jenny, one more thing (sorry). i agree with you that attributes like compassion, harmony, and emotion need to be more of a part of our world - or as you say, "redeemed." but to suggest that these are only feminine seems to be a horrible misunderstanding of what it means to be a godly man. i would argue that a godly man would inhabit all of these as well. would you agree?
Jenny,
I'd love to hear what you think about what I said regarding the way God revealed God's self - that's what this whole conversation boils down to. Everything you said makes sense, but it doesn't address how God revealed himself which is of the upmost importance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8342056.stm
It seems that I am a bit late in re-entering this conversation but since others took the time to respond and ask questions of me, I think it is only proper to come back no matter how late.
Chuck, thanks for expanding your thoughts. I believe that we need to challenge the ways that we have been culturally brought up especially as it relates to the language that we use and the impact of those words. My comments above hopefully raise awareness of the cultural ties to addressing God as masculine versus feminine, specifically since we acknowledge that God possesses attributes of both genders.
Which leads me to my next thought…Ken, you referred to God’s revelation of self as masculine. I agree that this is an important aspect but you failed to mention that God is also revealed as a burning bush, a dove, cloud, fire, and wind. So, the masculine revelation of God is not the final form, but is one form. Truth be told, if God had come in the form of a woman in the time period that Jesus arrived, the culture would have pushed her aside and relegated her to a crazy woman of little importance. God understands the importance of cultural relevancy. So one aspect of God may have been revealed in masculine form for particular reasons that we can debate, but the completeness of God is revealed in multiple forms (please reference Jan’s comment above).
As to the question of Satan, it is a completely separate dialogue. On one hand, you have the affirmation of character and on the flipside you begin to talk about the discouragement of character. But, again, if you look at our culture we do not nearly have as many problems with depicting Satan as a woman (she-devil, devil in a red dress, etc.) as we do with depicting God as anyone else but a white man. So, there are already multiple examples of depiction and acceptance of Satan as both man and woman.
And in the end, yes, I do believe that a godly man should possess all the attributes of compassion, harmony and emotion. However, culturally, we do not affirm these attributes to a godly man (please see “Wild at Heart”). So, my question then, is how do we redeem them so that we understand all these attributes to be godly?
Jenny,
Thank you so much for your response. I appreciate your willingness to respond and completely understand your point about God being revealed in a variety of ways, but there are two primary problems with your response as it pertains to referring to God in feminine language:
1. God may have been revealed in various forms, but the most common form of self-revelation came by way of masculine language. It is not just that this is "one form" of how he revealed himself, it is his preferred and dominant form. That he revealed himself in several other forms does not negate this fact nor does it give us liberty to ignore it.
2. God's cultural relevancy is fickle - sometimes he chooses to reveal himself in a way that the culture will "get" and sometimes not. He did, after all, reveal himself as a single God in a world that was thoroughly polytheistic. He also sent Jesus as the embodiment of God himself - this was not cultural relevancy, nobody expected it, that's why so many missed it.
With those said, I still can't jump on board. I wish I could, I am all for people connecting with God, but to me there seems to be something wrong with people connecting with God in ways that he has not revealed himself.
question 2 is legit. I love the power of question to make us think and rethink stuff.