09.08.04
Posted in faith at 12:02 am by
Kristen M (I’m pretty sure that’s the Kristen M that I mean) left a comment on the Misogynistic worship experience that reminded me of a chapter of Dale Spender’s book about the naming of God. I’ve found the concept of the sex of God to be an interesting topic of late. Spender argues strongly for the idea that male dominance has been the central factor in the emasculation of God in many religions and cultures, Christianity included.
Particularly of interest, is the fervor with which Christians, often the conservative ones, defend the maleness of the first and third persons of the trinity. I’m not really going to get into an argument about the sex of Jesus. The part of me that is a conservative Christian wouldn’t argue the biological sex of God turned man–though from what I read in scripture I think I can make a pretty good argument for the gender of Christ (gender being a set of cultural norms that describe feminine and masculine) to be androgenous.
But as to the gender of the 1st and 3rd members of the Godhead, the historical record is much fuzzier. Scripture, of course, mostly utilizes masculine pronouns when referring to God. I wouldn’t expect any different though as the writers of scripture were integrally shaped by the patriarchal structures of the day. This certainly shouldn’t be taken as a sign that patriarchal society is the society that God intended. If we followed that logic slavery should also be not only acceptable–but perscribed by God.
So why do some Christians insist that the first member of the Godhead is God the FATHER? Truthfully, the most popular argument seems to be that it’s disrespectful to call God a woman! This shocks me. Hidden in this are several presuppositions, the most damaging is that being a woman makes a person (or God) less than man. It’s not even that well veiled. If we didn’t live in a society where men were in power, this wouldn’t be an issue.
Still another issue may be the nearness of calling God “Mother” to the new age or wicca movements. I think that it’s also plausible that Christians have become so afraid of the occult that they fear one of two things. One, referring to God as Mother will convince other church members that they’re on a highway to hell. The other possibility is that God will interpret our terminology as a sign of our occult belief system. If the former is the case, who cares what others think. Honestly, what our fellow Christians think about us should certainly be secondary to where we stand in God’s eyes. This brings us to option number two. Does God interpret our terminology as disrespectful? I doubt it. First of all, it seems unlikely that an omniscient God would mistake our terminology for a sign of worshiping the deciever. Second, God created women in her own image. It seems highly implausible that God would be offended by being referred to in the sex of one whom she created in her image.
The truth is, I think, quite simply that change is hard. We live in a society where patronomy is the norm. Folks perceive that calling God woman is dangerous, we don’t know for sure…but it might just be theologically wrong. Unfortunately, these same folks are ignoring another theological danger. A danger that Kristen pointed out well. This attribution of the maleness of God can create a church community that systematically excludes women.
For me, when I ask myself what the greater danger is, the answer is simple. For others it’s not so simple. But at very least I’d hope that folks would be at least willing to consider the fact that this issue 1. isn’t as open and closed as our culture and upbringing has taught us that it is and 2. has significant danger if we continue to idolize the maleness of God.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2004/09/08/the_sex_of_god/trackback/
Posted in faith at 12:02 am by
Kristen M (I’m pretty sure that’s the Kristen M that I mean) left a comment on the Misogynistic worship experience that reminded me of a chapter of Dale Spender’s book about the naming of God. I’ve found the concept of the sex of God to be an interesting topic of late. Spender argues strongly for the idea that male dominance has been the central factor in the emasculation of God in many religions and cultures, Christianity included.
Particularly of interest, is the fervor with which Christians, often the conservative ones, defend the maleness of the first and third persons of the trinity. I’m not really going to get into an argument about the sex of Jesus. The part of me that is a conservative Christian wouldn’t argue the biological sex of God turned man–though from what I read in scripture I think I can make a pretty good argument for the gender of Christ (gender being a set of cultural norms that describe feminine and masculine) to be androgenous.
But as to the gender of the 1st and 3rd members of the Godhead, the historical record is much fuzzier. Scripture, of course, mostly utilizes masculine pronouns when referring to God. I wouldn’t expect any different though as the writers of scripture were integrally shaped by the patriarchal structures of the day. This certainly shouldn’t be taken as a sign that patriarchal society is the society that God intended. If we followed that logic slavery should also be not only acceptable–but perscribed by God.
So why do some Christians insist that the first member of the Godhead is God the FATHER? Truthfully, the most popular argument seems to be that it’s disrespectful to call God a woman! This shocks me. Hidden in this are several presuppositions, the most damaging is that being a woman makes a person (or God) less than man. It’s not even that well veiled. If we didn’t live in a society where men were in power, this wouldn’t be an issue.
Still another issue may be the nearness of calling God “Mother” to the new age or wicca movements. I think that it’s also plausible that Christians have become so afraid of the occult that they fear one of two things. One, referring to God as Mother will convince other church members that they’re on a highway to hell. The other possibility is that God will interpret our terminology as a sign of our occult belief system. If the former is the case, who cares what others think. Honestly, what our fellow Christians think about us should certainly be secondary to where we stand in God’s eyes. This brings us to option number two. Does God interpret our terminology as disrespectful? I doubt it. First of all, it seems unlikely that an omniscient God would mistake our terminology for a sign of worshiping the deciever. Second, God created women in her own image. It seems highly implausible that God would be offended by being referred to in the sex of one whom she created in her image.
The truth is, I think, quite simply that change is hard. We live in a society where patronomy is the norm. Folks perceive that calling God woman is dangerous, we don’t know for sure…but it might just be theologically wrong. Unfortunately, these same folks are ignoring another theological danger. A danger that Kristen pointed out well. This attribution of the maleness of God can create a church community that systematically excludes women.
For me, when I ask myself what the greater danger is, the answer is simple. For others it’s not so simple. But at very least I’d hope that folks would be at least willing to consider the fact that this issue 1. isn’t as open and closed as our culture and upbringing has taught us that it is and 2. has significant danger if we continue to idolize the maleness of God.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2004/09/08/the_sex_of_god/trackback/
J.R. said,
September 8, 2004 at 5:38 pm
nice post BC, you already know my views on this (remeber that thread on Relevant last year?). The whole idea that God is one more then the other is just ridiculous to me. I think the issue is that people read into things in the bible, like if the bible refers to God as “He” and “Father” that must me that is what God wants us to call Him, instead of looking at the greater idea of God that is portrayed in scripture which obviously points to a God that has the full characteristics of both Masculenity and Femininity. (Sorry about the spelling).
Just Pat said,
September 8, 2004 at 6:17 pm
Good thoughts BC. How about this one? What if it is our concept of “power” that is fallen?
Brandon said,
September 8, 2004 at 8:49 pm
Thanks JR and Pat!
What a fantastic concept Pat! I’m almost sure that you’re right, twice. One, I hadn’t taken that into account in my post. Two, the concept of power most certainly is fallen. So…I think you’ve inspired my next post.
Brandon said,
September 8, 2004 at 8:50 pm
PS…jar…you needn’t worry about spellun here. =)
Kristen M said,
September 8, 2004 at 9:30 pm
Yes, this is the Kristen M that you mean. And, again, it is soooo great to read your thoughts on this subject. It’s funny, recently I’ve tried using the “Mother” title in prayer, and it’s just weird. It does lend a whole different feel to the prayer time, though. This is perhaps why so many Catholics love praying to Mary- the church has made God seem totally male, and most of us would rather take our small hurts and worries to Mom, rather than Dad. Anyway- I appreciate your thoughts, sir.
Brandon said,
September 8, 2004 at 9:38 pm
he he he…”sir”
it makes me chuckle. Call me Brandon
Streak said,
September 9, 2004 at 9:50 am
Yes a very interesting thread. It does seem so interwoven with our very language, that as Kristen points out, it feels wrong to use anything else.
Part of my frustration with this tradition is the emphasis it puts on correlating God “the father” with our human father–and vice versa. I love my dad, but am not sure I can relate him to a creator that way. It seems to encourage some of my Baptist friends to practice a benign autocracy with their own kids to live up to that model. Problem is that most kids figure out that Dad isn’t God at some point.
And now I am off topic. Too much rambling through the brain this morning. Good stuff here though. It is in the aggregator near the top.
Streak