03.31.06
Posted in faith, culture at 9:07 am by Brandon
I’m not sure which concerns me more:
The idea of calling God “she” publicly because it might confer less holiness on God.
OR
That I refer to God as a “he” because I’m afraid of the negative reactions I’ll get from people if I do otherwise.
OR
The fact that, even after lots of study about the topic of gender and derogation, I still remain enough of an idiot to believe that holiness, purity, omnipotence, etc. is somehow associated with masculinity. And when it comes down to it, I don’t have the uterus to buck the system.
Perhaps having the uterus to buck the system in real life is what we bloggers tend to share in common. We’d love to do those things we write about, but all too often, we write because we don’t have the courage to “do.” And, maybe deep down, we write because we hope that in writing we can give others the courage to do what we can’t–or won’t–do.
Of course, none of these good intentions really excuse us from the fact that we’re dodging an inevitable bullet. Someday, I’ll be forced to do either the right thing–like standing up for the position of women in the naming of God, for example–or the wrong thing, and until then, I’ll be praying like mad that I’ve got the uterus to do what’s right.
Tags: Confession, Gender and God, Blogging
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/03/31/a-morning-thought/trackback/
Posted in faith, culture at 9:07 am by Brandon
I’m not sure which concerns me more:
The idea of calling God “she” publicly because it might confer less holiness on God.
OR
That I refer to God as a “he” because I’m afraid of the negative reactions I’ll get from people if I do otherwise.
OR
The fact that, even after lots of study about the topic of gender and derogation, I still remain enough of an idiot to believe that holiness, purity, omnipotence, etc. is somehow associated with masculinity. And when it comes down to it, I don’t have the uterus to buck the system.
Perhaps having the uterus to buck the system in real life is what we bloggers tend to share in common. We’d love to do those things we write about, but all too often, we write because we don’t have the courage to “do.” And, maybe deep down, we write because we hope that in writing we can give others the courage to do what we can’t–or won’t–do.
Of course, none of these good intentions really excuse us from the fact that we’re dodging an inevitable bullet. Someday, I’ll be forced to do either the right thing–like standing up for the position of women in the naming of God, for example–or the wrong thing, and until then, I’ll be praying like mad that I’ve got the uterus to do what’s right.
Tags: Confession, Gender and God, Blogging
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/03/31/a-morning-thought/trackback/
rick said,
March 31, 2006 at 11:04 am
(smiling) Dude, you remind me of myself in so many ways, no wonder I like you.
Leighton said,
March 31, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Blogging is doing, particularly when you use your real name and have a chance of being “outed” to the people you happen to see face-to-face (when, really, using anything other than an untraceable pseudonym is preemptively outing yourself).
In general there’s a difference between fighting for an issue with what you suspect are the wrong motivations, and not bothering to fight at all–although I guess the tone can be different if you suspect you’re not the real deal–either “Excuse me, but could you maybe take a few minutes out of your busy day to consider this important issue” or “I care deeply about this issue & who are you to tell me or anyone else what to believe” versus, “No, this is wrong, here’s why, here’s the background behind it, here are specific examples of the consequences that are playing out every day, and I will factually engage any arguments to the contrary, none of which are new to me by the way.” But it’s all a process of awakening, the ones lead to the other eventually.
With respect to this particular issue (viz. “women’s” issues [i.e. society’s issues]–I don’t have an opinion on the naming of God, though my preference is not to use pronouns at all), I know that the trap I fell into when I was first making a point of bringing it up to my friends was that I was still looking at it from my position of Protector-Male, honorbound to defend the rights and privilege of the weaker sex against any ills that might befall them; I didn’t even realize it either, until I started reading blogs of women like Bellatrys who in every entry made me realize just how ignorant I am about damn near everything, and I came to realize that, yeah, women will do just fine on their own, even if the ones fighting the battles (men and women both) do get cranky on occasion, and not just with their rhetorical opponents…
And it’s not like traditional rooting-for-the-underdog cases either, where you’ve got people *clearly* in power oppressing people who don’t have the wealth or the social standing to compete with them, and you can rightfully say that someone needs to be smacked–it’s not like we can point to specific insitutions that are at fault like governments or corporations or media conglomerates; it’s more like the Agents in the Matrix who are no one in particular but can possess any of us at any time to accomplish their evil ends. (And as in the Matrix, everyone who has stood their ground against an Agent has “died”, i.e., burned out–how do you fight a thought-virus?) It’s also hard to clearly define who you’re speaking against, because “women’s” issues deeply affect men too (that’s not to say women don’t get the shorter end of the pretty tiny stick).
But I like Bellatrys’ solution (she deals mostly with geopolitics, though she occasionally posts on women’s issues). Never speak out against sexism; speak out instead against specific examples of talk that you might label sexist, not calling it sexist, but pointing out exactly why it devalues women. Never speak out against discrimination; speak out instead against specific practices that are discriminitory, not calling them discriminatory, but pointing out exactly how they are practicing inequality. Etc. The labels are unimportant; the content is all-important. You’ll never persuade anyone that some nebulous, half-defined noun like sexism is another nebulous, half-defined noun like a “problem”, and even if you could, it wouldn’t really accomplish anything; the solution is to engage what is really happening by paying attention to details, and specifics. Looking at other bloggers who talk about gender issues on a regular basis is good for that. It’s not like we’re in a vacuum here; we’re all connected. Networking is power.
Joe said,
March 31, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Whatever man, God is a ‘he’ because it is men’s role in our society to lead our christian women into godliness
I learned this from Campus Crusade for Christ so don’t try to debunk me
Josh said,
March 31, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I applaud your tendency to call God ’she’, although I too tend to avoid pronouns altogether when I write about God. I think the only reason I don’t use ’she’ is that it nearly always distracts from the point you’re making and steers the conversation in a different direction. If I could just pass of ’she’ without it requiring comment, I’d do it all the time. Which, I think, is what you’ve got going here. Since you’re consistent with it, it becomes normal and less of a distraction. So I say keep it up. The way I see it, you’re not doing it because God is a woman, or because ’she’ is more appropriate than ‘he.’ It’s that the two are equally appropriate, yet one is used far more than the other. So why not tip the scales a little bit back towards center?
Dan Lewis said,
March 31, 2006 at 1:19 pm
The idea of calling God “she” publicly because it might confer less holiness on God.
Hmmm. I understand this (and option 3, which is very similar), as an attempt to nod to the argument that the manly scale of absolute gender is real. Or it bothers you deep down inside to think of God as an old, white-haired woman instead of an old, white-haired man.
I have more sympathy with option 2, “I don’t call God She or Heavenly Mother because I’m a coward.” However, I don’t fall into this camp.
Jesus and the New Testament authors called God “Abba”. Whether it’s for deep philosophical reasons about gender, deep theological truths about the nature of God, Jewish sexism, or because they didn’t know any better, I’m not in a privileged position to know. We could do worse than follow along in their footsteps.
I will say, though, that we could also do worse than follow Jesus where he respects women, foreigners, minorities, social outcasts. He called God “Abba” in the context of dignity and equality for all. Think about that, then see the contrast with this: “I have also been disappointed to discover that some female Christian authors have written about the role of the husband. It is not the job of the woman to tell the men how they should live. This is usurping their authority. (1 Timothy 2v12-14).” That sound you just heard was another Bible verse being used out of context.
I will mention in passing, though, that the Mormons have an interesting problem along these lines. Official doctrine is (with the caveat that no one can tell you what you believe) that human beings are the spiritual children of the Heavenly Father (in Mormon theology, God the Father has a body). And, some Mormon lady pointed out, that means there is a Heavenly Mother too, who is just as godly as the Father.
Here’s a short piece about the doctrine.
Shteevie said,
April 1, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Jesus taught us to pray “Our Father” not “Our Mother” or “Our Father or Mother”
While I doubt that God, who is spirit, has a penis, scripture employs the masculine pronoun when it refers to God.
I’m suspicious of people who insist on referring to God as she. It shows they’re more concerned with political correctness and so-called gender equality than they are submitting to the authority of scripture.
Leighton said,
April 1, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Good for them!
Shannon said,
April 1, 2006 at 7:30 pm
I think that God is referred to as He from the beginning of the Bible because of the idea that Adam was made in his image. However, I think that’s the wrong interpretation if you take that passage in two different ways. In one way, I think Adam was made in God’s image in that he was made in the same form as Jesus - Adam wouldn’t know this, of course, but God is omnipotent and would. (Some wonky time issues there, but with the assumption of an omnipotent God, I think it all works out). Secondly - and the better interpretation, I think - the idea that man was created in God’s image isn’t necessarily supposed to be taken literally. We are in God’s image not in looking like God - because God doesn’t have a body - but in having the ability to love as God does and to have a living soul.
Personally, I use He, but only because there is no non-gendered pronoun in English. And in writing, I find it very awkward-sounding to not use pronouns. But I think both God - Abba - and Jesus emboded the best of both genders.
JJ said,
April 2, 2006 at 10:47 am
A friend of mine who took some gender studies courses in university had a very interesting theory on why God chose to identify Himself as male (even though we know He is spirit, and therefore essentially genderless). The reason for this, her theory goes, is because women are inherently more powerful than men (we can create life), and therefore a female god who created the universe makes sense, but a male god actually turns all of our logic on its head and makes Him even more impressive.
Anyway, it’s an interesting theory.
dorsey said,
April 2, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Although the topic just reeks of PC-chic, you say tomato, I say tomahto. Call God He, call God She. Fear Him, fear Her.
For God so loved the world that She gave her only child, that whosoever…
Yep. Still works for me.
Shian said,
April 3, 2006 at 8:47 am
It could very well be that this isn’t as much of a problem as it seems… C.S. Lewis did point out that it is likely that half of all our great thoughts and thelogicial statements might end up to be utter rubbish that has no real answer indeed.
I wonder if these gender labels are for our own good or for His, I don’t think for a moment that God is devoid of any trace of feminity (if anything He probably knows and embodies more feminity then any lady created can ever hope to do), on the other hand, there was apparently some utility in overwhelmingly using male labels to describe Him in the bible. So we ought to keep out an eye for that as well, as much as some of us might like to innovate they way we view God.
I don’t buy for a second that God is some myogimist (or sexist for that matter), but I wonder if indeed the idea of assigning sexual terms and ideas to Him come from an accucrate grasp of Him, or is it rather terms we use for our own good so we can but get a little grasp on what that is otherwise absolutely unknowlable. These labels are not too strong to be used on God, in contrast I feel they are too weak. It could be in arguing so much about which proper term to use we might be mistaking the makeshift solution to the issue for the issue itself.
Perhaps the issue isn’t really as important as it is, but being made important by our own argumentative vanities. I don’t think when they refer to God as a ‘He’, or as our ‘Father’, they meant it in literal sense, rather it is in a trans-literal sense, a transposition of a concept much higher into lower terms as we might be able to get it.
Believe me, it would be so much easier to use ‘She’ on God with me, being male and relating to God so many times as the Lover of my soul and the Love of my life (of which female terms might be more congruent). But I know that this is not so. Somehow this Love demands that I regard Him as, well, in ‘Him’ terms as well.
I wonder if God thinks this is important? Could it be that He wants us to settle on calling Him something, as much as He is something so much else… in fact when we use the term ‘He’, we know we are refering to something more then just mere male and female.
Kyle said,
April 3, 2006 at 6:39 pm
There’s always the Barthian solution to avoid pronouns in this manner: God revealed Godself to humanity, etc. I think part of the point was to avoid anthropormorphizing God.
In Genesis 1, aren’t both male AND FEMALE made in God’s image? So it is together as the collective human race that we somehow reflect God’s image…
Also, for God as being “feminine,” there is the verse (don’t remember where) in which God is compared to a mother hen who protects her chicks.
dorsey said,
April 3, 2006 at 10:15 pm
Yeah, that was Jesus (Matt 23 & Luke 13) lamenting Jerusalem’s rejection of Him (or Her…no, Jesus was a Him, yes?…yes, definitely a Him, otherwise He couldn’t have married Mary Magdalene, right? Hmm…confused).
Anyway, that’s a good point, Kyle. Even moreso in that Christ, a man, refers to Himself with such feminine imagery.
wildwest said,
April 4, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Some of us (radical, liberal modernists) have stopped thinking of God as a person, male or female, generations ago. We read the language of the Bible and understand it as metaphorical.
At Fountain Street Church for generations, Duncan Littlefair began each worship service with an evocative call to worship, “This is indeed a beautiful day which the Lord hath made…” Unfortunately, however, he passed away, and his level of sophistication died with him. Some of his successors (who think they’re outdoing him, but are actually far more ignorant) decided it was more proper to change it to “This is a day which Gaaaaaaahhhhhhhd has made…” (not very poetic and evocative, is it?) lest someone think that by saying “Lord” we are implying that God is male. Little do they know we got over that more generations ago than they can count.
Jody said,
April 4, 2006 at 3:54 pm
interesting thoughts everyone on gender and God. i think of the fact that God has been called he, and Jesus has been portrayed as white generation after generation. as well as the fact that white Men have tended to have privilege and dominance generation after generation. now, God was referred to as ‘He’ in scripture, perhaps the only reason was that of the culture at the time. perhaps, as i think tony campolo points out, there are names of God in the original languages of scripture that are feminine, and maybe culture after culture has ignored the feminine names of God. i don’t know.
Doug said,
April 6, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Why is so terrible to call God “he”? Every character in scripture did it, even the women. Including Jesus. Doesn’t mean God likes men more than women. Doesn’t even mean God is male. It’s just how God chose to reveal himself to us.
Help my understand why this is an issue and why we should people feel the need to act in a way different from how Christ addressed God. Maybe I’m missing something.
Doug said,
April 6, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Please excuse my horrible typos in the comment above… I think you get the gist.
Kathy Carlson said,
April 9, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Man is made in God’s image, hence the “He”. Woman is made in man’s image. You may not like that, but you didn’t make the universe. You don’t have to like it.
benjamin said,
April 10, 2006 at 8:24 am
That’s right Brandon, if you don’t like it then you can suck God’s great big dick…. (I hear it’s twice as long as Allah’s)
FP said,
April 10, 2006 at 2:48 pm
God is neither male nor female.
However, Christ, the authentic Source, reveals to us the Father.
While the name Father conjures up imagery, it is more than just an image because Christ names for us the First Person of the Trinity as Father in order to express the relationship we have with the Triune God. From the mouth of the Word of God we gain this insight which we would not have gained on our own and thus we must be faithful to the teachings of Christ and when we pray say “Our Father…”
wildwest said,
April 11, 2006 at 7:33 am
Or Hail Mary.
Matthew said,
April 11, 2006 at 9:51 pm
I feel that as probably the only Mormon that visits this site, I should respond to the post by Dan Lewis. (yes, I realize that this is a little after the fact, but what can I say? College and finals stink)
First, Dan, I appreciate your attempt to find a more knowledgeable source on the subject, however, a word of caution I’d give is to seek information from a currently active member or an official church site such as lds.org instead of an excommunicated member. Also… I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t “some Mormon woman” that first spoke of Heavenly Mother, but that Joseph Smith first articulated it.
As for church doctrine, I guess I’d like to point out some falicies of the article you cited. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. These three serparate individuals are united in purpose, namely to bring about the immortality and eternal life of mankind. Heavenly Father and Jesus both are resurrected beings with bodies of flesh and bone. The Holy Ghost having only a Spirit Body so that he can dwell in us. The fact that Heavenly Father is the literal father of our spirits, as was pointed out, implies that there is a Heavenly Mother.
We also believe that marriage and families can be forever when sealed in the temple. Families are the ultimate unit in the kingdom of God and husband and wife are expected to progress together until they become like our Heavenly Parents. Now, since husband and wife are never separated, if worthy, then when the man becomes a god, the woman becomes a godess. Together, they are a “God”, namely the title of God is really the union of a righteous, exalted man AND woman. Honestly, have you ever heard of a sucessful man who didn’t have a wonderful woman beside him? And, how can there be a father without a mother?
And now my opinion. One of the beauties of the gospel is that once we are taught the fundamental truths, we are expected to use our right to personal revelation to seek out and learn all truths. This includes academic pursuits as well as theological. In my musings and ponderings, the feeling I’ve gotten is that our Heavenly Mother is very active in our lives and loves us as any mother loves her children. We have been commanded, by Christ, to pray to our Father in Heaven, thus that is what the church teaches. However, my personal belief is that Heavenly Mother is active in answering out prayers, too. So, basically, I don’t have a “problem” with the fact that we pray to our Father while recognizing we have a Mother. Maybe that’s because I’m a guy, but every woman I’ve talked to understands it, and is ok with that.
Sorry this has rambled a bit, but I wanted to cover all the bases. So, in conclusion, I’m happy to answer any questions about our doctrine to the best of my ability. (If there are questions I promise to respond faster than I did to this post) I know the Church of Jesus Christ has been restored and that He lives.
Proud Catholic said,
April 12, 2006 at 12:03 pm
www.catholic.com
Leighton said,
April 12, 2006 at 10:18 pm
http://www.geocities.com/tribhis/cthulhutract.html
Penny said,
April 15, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Man is made in God’s image, hence the “He”. Woman is made in man’s image. You may not like that, but you didn’t make the universe. You don’t have to like it.
Uh, sorry, but this is just scripturally wrong. Woman may have been made to be man’s helpmate, but Genesis is quite clear that both man and woman are made in the image of God:
“In the image of God He created them; male and female he created them.” Genesis 1:27.
Mark said,
April 16, 2006 at 11:19 pm
C.S. Lewis sated it in an interesting and I think helpful way. He said God was the one masculine to which everything else is feminine.
Then to contradict my own reply
God has both feminine and masculine characteristics or to put it more correctly God has given both men and women different attributes of himself. For instance, to man he gave the nature to dominate to women he gave the nature to be jealously beheld as beautiful by their beloved.
In the end, if we believe our faith is reveled in the bible we must also accept the terms by which it was reveled. In sort he called Himself He.
Patriarch Verlch said,
April 29, 2006 at 4:23 am
Verlch.blogspot.com
Check out what I think and why baby!!!
Patriarch Verlch said,
April 29, 2006 at 4:48 am
God is very male in His Authority. Jesus had 12 male disiples, he came as a man. God is called the Father, and man is created in the image of God, and women is created in the image of man.
Man is created in God’s image, but woman is made in man’s image and for that reason are women subject to men by natural law.”]
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 1 Corinthians 11 7-9
Woman is the image and glory of man.
benjamin said,
April 29, 2006 at 9:56 am
Ahh yes, natural law - when you want God’s stamp on the status quo, just start jabbering on about natural law.
Kevin said,
April 29, 2006 at 3:21 pm
There were 12 apostles, not 12 disciples. Jesus had more than 12 disciples, and there were plenty of women among them.
Patriarch Verlch said,
July 1, 2006 at 2:10 am
The bible was written, every book, by man.
Man is created in the Image and glory of God, woman is created in the Image and glory of man. Hence why Adam named a Wo-man, a woman, because she was taken out of man.
Men are taller, stonger and faster generally speaking than women, aswell as being heads of the family, or Patriarchs like me.
1 Corinthians 11:7-9
“For a man . . . is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man”.
For man is not from the woman, but woman from the man.
Nor was man created for woman, but woman for the man.”
1 Tim 2:11-13
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.
And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man,
but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ”
http://www.soulcare.org/Bible%20Studies/Genesis/Genesis-Day-Six-Glory.html