In the Image of God: Male and Female (by Rose Marie Berger)
When I asked a leading progressive biblical scholar who was doing the very best bible work on images of God and gender theology, she didn't hesitate in her answer: Elizabeth Johnson, she said.
Johnson, a Roman Catholic sister in the Congregation of St. Joseph, is interviewed about images of God in the January U.S. Catholic (Honor your Father and Mother). This is the theme she also takes up in her new book Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God (Continuum, 2007).
Stale images of God aren't working for today's seekers, says Johnson. New ones are emerging from the experiences of all God's people – male and female. In the excerpt below, she reflects on God-language and invitational language in worship. But read the whole interview. It's excellent.
What does it mean that we call God by male terms?
I have this sentence that I quote over and over again: The symbol of God functions. The male symbol of God functions to privilege a certain way of male rule in the world and to undercut women's spiritual power, women's own sense of themselves as made in the image of God.
We women have to abstract ourselves from our bodies to see ourselves in the image of God if God is always depicted as male. It has serious ramifications for spirituality and for the identity of believers and for the community.
Why is there so much resistance to using feminine images of God?
I think the rejection of the inclusive language lectionary, which the U.S. bishops applied for in 1992 and which was rejected by the Vatican, was a clear recognition that once you start making room for even nonsexist language about humanity, let alone feminine images of God, there's a fear that women will want to move in socially and politically, and then you've got a challenge to church structure as we know it. I think there's a great deal of fear of women's power.
Can you imagine a church that took female images of God to heart?
Let me say, I think women and men are equal in sin and grace. I don't think women are going to be the salvation of the church or of this country. I think we can all get on power trips. I'm convinced of it, maybe because I've been in a women's religious community, and I have six sisters. I am disabused of this romantic notion of women's greatness as compared to men.
At this moment in history, women have figured out what's wrong with the current pattern and how their experiences have led to different ways of relating, organizing, and running things. Given the chance, they would bring that pattern into the church and let it play off and see what develops.
Rose Marie Berger, a Sojourners associate editor, is a Catholic peace activist and poet.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
While I can think of several instances in works of art from centuries ago where God is depicted as a man, I'm drawing a blank trying to think of modern depictions of God has a man or a human at all. I think Christians have largely given up on depicting what God looks like, which is a good thing.
Other than physical depictions, I guess one could express concern that we usually refer to God as a "He" and "Father". You could solve that by constantly referring to God as "He or She" or "Father or Mother God" but that gets clunky and wordy. You also run into the problem if you believe that Jesus is one with God as He definitely was male. Or you could switch to "She", but that doesn't solve the "problem"; it merely reverses it.
Honestly, this seems like one of those issues that a very small group of people think about and about which most Christians don't really care.
Posted by: Eric | January 14, 2008 11:18 AM
I remember thinking in high school that it really didn't make sense for God to be male when He (sic) created male and female. Why would he be submerged in his own creation? My thinking on this has not changed in 25 years.
A friend of mine wrote a Dr. Seuss-style poem about this some years back. The only line I remember is:
"T'aint it absurd to think
Almighty God has a dink?"
Posted by: I and I | January 14, 2008 11:40 AM
I agree that most people haven't thought about it, and it's really only come up through the feminist movement in the church (again, mostly outside of evangelicalism). It sounds nice and egalitarian to call God "he or she," but it actually does damage to his personhood by doing so and affects the way in which we know and interact with him. He chooses terms to describe himself for a reason. It's also noteworthy that Jesus, who certainly violated many rules re: gender in his day, always referred to God as "Father."
Again, these issues (this post and DBB's post) have little to do with politics and a lot to do with theology.
Is it possible to be liberal politically and conservative theologically? I think so (and know many such people in my church), but I see little evidence of this here at Sojo. Why is that?
Posted by: jesse | January 14, 2008 11:41 AM
I know of at least 24 Scripture verses that refer to God in the feminine. Not sure what so many others are afraid of.
"We women have to abstract ourselves from our bodies to see ourselves in the image of God if God is always depicted as male."
Exactly, Rose Marie. Thanks for the thought-provoking essay.
Posted by: Question Everything | January 14, 2008 1:22 PM
"I know of at least 24 Scripture verses that refer to God in the feminine. Not sure what so many others are afraid of."
--Some that refer to feminine *characteristics*. Zero that refer to God as "she" or "mother".
Posted by: jesse | January 14, 2008 1:33 PM
Actually that's not entirely accurate. What do you think the Shekinah was if not the equivalent of a divine mother?
p
Posted by: payshun | January 14, 2008 2:04 PM
I think few Christians think that God is a Zeus-like figure sitting on a cloud. In fact, I suspect that most Christians understand that assigning gender to the Almighty is a silly exercise--that God would have a dink.
Still, we are left with the "[s]tale images of God [that] aren't working for today's seekers." In pushing on those stale images, I've worked hard to expand my understanding of God, and therefore what it means to trust in God. The tired metaphor of Omnipotent Father suggests that we can ask God for things like we ask our parents for things. And that suggestion leads to a crisis of faith when people realize the universe doesn't work that way.
So, I think the tired metaphor damages us all. At least when we try to investigate our faith.
Prophetic Progress: In what do you trust?
Posted by: Jim | January 14, 2008 3:07 PM
We do not make God in our image...God makes us in his. Any other god is idolatry. Conservatives as well as liberals have been guilty of skewing Bible verses to push an agenda, and any time I hear of a "reimaging" that seeks to challenge/re-engineer central tenets of our relationship to God, I raise a warning flag.
Posted by: wildebeast | January 14, 2008 4:02 PM
Our choice of language tells more about ourselves and less about God who is ineffable. Our frustration in attempts to express our human understanding of the Most Holy One has us falling all over our humanness , and reflects society's struggle with human relations.
Posted by: WDM | January 14, 2008 4:07 PM
The "feminine" aspects of God are on display too, although people tend not to recall them. For an example, see Matthew 23:37 and its parallel Luke 13:34.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" (NIV)
Now, I've heard that there is a very good reason why we refer to God as "heavenly FATHER." He is in many ways like an earthly father;Â instructing, teaching, rebuking, punishing, etc. etc. Sure mothers do these things too, but at least typically using a different style. This stands in stark contrast to the notion of God as a grandfather (They tend to be too soft.) So the metaphor of God as a father is more accurate than many people are led to believe.
Posted by: Ngchen | January 14, 2008 4:50 PM
I really wish we had a third declension in English as Spanish does, to refer to God. There is He, She and God. We are so phobic and ethnocentric that we think ours is the only and best way to do things. What a shame!
Posted by: John Zeigler | January 14, 2008 4:52 PM
My understanding is that Jewish scripture prior to Rabbinic Judaism referred to God as manifested through Wisdom ("Sophia" in the Septaguint) and that Jews understood Wisdom to be feminine in character.
Am I way off-base?
Posted by: carl copas | January 14, 2008 4:54 PM
One of the books the Reformers threw out was The Book Of WISDOM and WISDOM has always been understood to be the
FEMININE DIVINITY:
WISDOM 7:22-8:1
In Wisdom is a spirit intelligent, holy, unique.
Manifold, subtle, agile, clear, unstained, certain.
Not baneful, but loving the good,
Keen, unhampered, beneficent, kind,
Firm, secure, all-powerful, all-seeing
And pervading all spirits.
Wisdom is mobile beyond all motion and SHE penetrates and pervades all things by reason
SHE is the aura of the might of God and a pure effusion of the glory of The Almighty
SHE is the refulgence of eternal Light, a spotless mirror of the power of God
And SHE who is one, can do all things and renews everything
And passing into holy souls from age to age,
SHE produces friends of God and prophets.......
*Wisdom has built her house and SHE calls to all; "Come, eat my food and drink my wine and you will live abundant life and walk in the ways of understanding." [*Proverbs 9: 4-6]
Wisdom calls; "I have built it; will you come? Do you have eyes to see and ears to hear?
Holy Wisdom, the Feminine Divinity: Hokema,
Who was with The Word from the very beginning,
She is One with Him and He with Her;
Pure Being; One God;
One Creator; One Lover of All the Human Family...
Let me tell a little story to illuminate you, if you haven't heard the one about the Rabbi Hillel,
Who lived 100 years before Christ walked the earth
Rabbi Hillel knew that the Hebrew understanding of Hokema;
Holy Wisdom;
The Feminine Divinity
Was the same as the Greek understanding of
The Logos:
The Word.
It was the first Paul and John who first understood:
The Word was good and
The Word was
The Logos
The Word is The Christ.
It was John on Rubber Soul who intuitively knew:
"The Word is just The Way and The Word is Love"
Listen to me +
Use your imagination,
For as William Blake understood:
"IMAGINATION is EVIDENCE of The Divine"
Before Christ walked the earth a man,
He was already a SHE:
Hokema, Holy Wisdom; the Feminine Divinity
Now, isn't that Good News?
The God Head is One Pure Being;
as much male as female
as much mommy as daddy.
And we are all children of Her Universe;
And **He is the oldest personality because He is the origin of everything;
and everything is born of Him.
He is the supreme controller of the universe,
the maintainer and instructor of humanity.
He is smaller than the smallest.[**Bhagavad-Gita]
He indwells the heart of every atom and
She is beyond the Universe.
Wisdom is calling,
She is rattling your windows and shaking your walls
With some more good news of the
three witnesses,
and three always beats one
and not just that,
I've got a fourth.
Get out your Good Book sisters and brothers and chew on this;
Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, and Luke 12:10
are simpatico with gnostic Thomas saying 44:
'Jesus said: "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven."
Listen to me, God is within every sister, brother and all Creation,
Wake up to your own divinity and
Get a clue Christian:
His ways are not your ways and Her thoughts are not your thoughts
Dominion never meant to rape and plunder,
but to nurture, care and love
And if you have not love, you have nothing at all
And on that final day we all will stand naked before The Creator
And we have been warned that there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth
by those who were so sure they were in, because they are the ones left out.
WAKE UP Christian!
Hear the wind begin to howl.
e
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Posted by: Eileen Fleming | January 14, 2008 5:21 PM
I am a woman and use to think this "gender" language stuff was all lame (years ago)... but then I spent a summer interning at a church with this AMAZING woman pastor... who had these deeply personal and creative descriptions of God (taken from scripture... particularly the O.T.)... so as not to say "he" so much. I found it made my prayer life richer... and my worship experience deeper... Many shorthand God and say "he" but we can also say "creator" or some other descriptive of God... which really is meaningful and true...
Posted by: e-dubya | January 14, 2008 5:40 PM
Seek first God
Language and theology are important--but only instruments/symbols. Language is as symbolic as a picture. The necessity of speaking about God in the feminine may be more about a bankruptcy of language rather than declaring something different about God.
Too many of the battles over gender language becomes idolatrous on both sides of the equation.
If "He" is not a broad/deep enough concept to describe God--then it would be good to return one's givenness to God instead of the word, "He."
If I become upset because someone wishes to use "She" to describe the same God--it would be good to return my givennes to God instead of the symbol.
Try God. If God is not big enough to satisfy you; my hunch is you are worshipping your language/symbol/concept instead of seeking God.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 14, 2008 6:57 PM
i have been a third party to the sort of ridiculous arguements where the creator's
gender is debated. And debates over whether
the heavenly father has a beard or not.
the terms "man" and "woman" describe
finite earthlings and are inadequate
to describe the Omniscient,Omnipresent.
During these debates over god's "man or womanhood"
i would try to explain that native americans refered to the creator as the "great spirit"
and the earth as our mother, AND that they were
not speaking of some other entity or a mere myth.
be free to understand how small we and every
man and woman are,and that the creator is immeasurable.
Posted by: BE FREE | January 14, 2008 7:03 PM
hi jeff,
anything you did want to discuss
on the subject ? am here
Posted by: be free | January 14, 2008 8:05 PM
"My understanding is that Jewish scripture prior to Rabbinic Judaism referred to God as manifested through Wisdom ("Sophia" in the Septaguint) and that Jews understood Wisdom to be feminine in character.
Am I way off-base?"
Carl -
Not at all. Furthermore, both the Hebrew "ruach" and the Greek "pneuma" are feminine nouns, so every time the Bible talks about spirit or the Holy Spirit, it is presenting God in feminine terms. It was only Latin that made spirit masculine.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 14, 2008 9:07 PM
Eileen Flemming, I loved your comment and will visit the site you posted.
Also Proverbs chapter 8 is our Mama speaking to we children. And she ain't so pleased being ignored and desparaged.
To avoid sexual images, I just say Lord. Also Jesus said, I AM the way, ... Before Abraham, I AM. When asked his name, God said I AM, that I AM.
Notice when we talk of God it's 3rd person, to God is second, but a first person relationship is something else and the goal. If we realize our divinity, then perhaps we could appreciate the rest of creation's.
No wonder we get to the kingdom from within.
Posted by: Barbara | January 15, 2008 5:22 AM
God is not a man.
God is not a woman.
God is God.
Posted by: Gloria Poe | January 15, 2008 7:06 AM
"God is not a man.
God is not a woman.
God is God."
Exactly.
But it is also undeniable that when the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray, he instructed them to begin: "Our Father"... (in the original Greek: "pater haymone"..."Our Father"). So, I believe it to be quite disingenuous and inaccurate to suggest that the reason God is referred to in masculine terms is to somehow oppress or demean women. Sinful people might distort images and terminology...but don't forget what the original source was--Jesus!
Posted by: gaborikfan | January 15, 2008 11:49 AM
Posted by: gaborikfan | January 15, 2008 11:49 AM
Well stated - can add nothing more.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 15, 2008 12:11 PM
"Sinful people might distort images and terminology...but don't forget what the original source was--Jesus!"
Yes, and Jesus also spoke often about the Holy Spirit, which was linguistically female. This is a point that is lost when the Bible is translated into a non-gendered language like English, or when it is translated into other modern languages in which spirit has become a masculine word.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 15, 2008 12:36 PM
And Jesus did not say specifically not to call God "mother." He may have used "Father" as the way to address God in prayer because of the cultural norms, but that does not necessarily mean God is ONLY father. Again, God created fatherhood, motherhood, masculine and feminine, so why would He (sic) limit Himself (sic) to His (sic) own created constructs?
Geez, the English language can be frustrating sometimes!
Posted by: I and I | January 15, 2008 12:45 PM
God is indeed God. No one is disputing that. What we are saying is that has both trancendatal feminine and masculine characteristics. What's so hard to understand about that?
p
Posted by: payshun | January 15, 2008 1:42 PM
correction:
transcendental not trancedendatal
Posted by: payshun | January 15, 2008 1:44 PM
"The image of God functions." Masculine language referencing God is not just about what we think we believe, but what we believe underneath our intellect.
I spent a year reading the One-Year Bible, consciously substituting feminine (or inclusive) for masculine language, both for God and for people. It was hard to do, even though I had been committed to feminine and inclusive language for years. (Incidentally, "Lord" is masculine. Try using "Lady" instead -- the equivalent rank in traditional peerage -- and see what that does to your mind!)
Anyone interested in knowing about texts that refer to God as Mother should take a look at Phyllis Trible's "God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality," and "Texts of Terror."
Thanks to all for interesting, intelligent and civilized comments. Blessings.
Posted by: Rachel | January 15, 2008 4:40 PM
I have a distinct memory of this issue that, while at the time seemed unimportant, now brings a lot of light to this current debate.
I was playing downstairs with 2 boys (we were all probably around 5) while our moms (friends from church) ate lunch upstairs. We started the typical "boys vs. girls" arguments. They stated "well boys are better because there are 2 of us and 1 of you"
I replied with "well there are more moms upstairs so girls win"
They replied with "well we win cause God is a boy."
To which I had no reply.
It is the small instances like this that, over the course of a woman's life, in particular one raised in the church, beat down on her already fragile self esteem, to the point that God as a male can become just another image of patriarchal authority.
Even if this is a small issue to only limited circles (which I find unlikely), I think it should be something recognized by the church at large. Those who feel strongly about it should not be patronized.
Posted by: Sarah | January 15, 2008 4:46 PM
First "Shekinah" is never used in the scriptures. It is used later by Jews and Christians to speak of God's presence, and yes it is feminine in gender. Shechaniah is found in scripture (a name from the word shekinah)and interestingly it is a man's name. No where in early Jewish or Christian writings is "Shekinah" used to reference God's gender.
Pneuma is not feminine in gender as someone said earlier, but is neuter. The corresponding Aramaic word ruach(sp) is feminine. What is key is what Jesus taught referring to the Holy Spirit and gender in John 14:26, 15:26' 16:8 and 16:13-14. Jesus calls Him the Holy Spirit (pneuma)and then uses the pronoun "he". Since Jesus said "He" I will also.
The concept of sophia and God's gender? Go to 1 Corinthians 1:30. Sophia is femenine in gender but that doesn't mean it can't be used to describe a man.
Finally from a historic view. Every know ancient religion had gods and goddesses. Jewish revelation was distinct in using the exclusive male pronoun.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 15, 2008 5:20 PM
payshun; what is so hard to understand is the relevance of the discussion. if the new testament was written by God inspired men and you believe it is the Word of God, why try to change the words in it? so you can feel better, maybe?
Posted by: jerry | January 15, 2008 5:24 PM
Two reasons we don't change gender references.
First is authority: Do we have the authority to change the names of God used by Christ, the bible and the church?
Second is historical:The bible is divine revelation, not culturally relative, negotiable and changeable. C.S. Lewis said, "Christians believe god Himself has told us how to speak of Him."
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 15, 2008 5:32 PM
Jesus says we need to be born again of the Spirit. If God the Holy Spirit is not a woman, how can She give birth?
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 15, 2008 5:48 PM
Ashpenaz,
You hit upon something unique. The ancient pagans always had gods and goddesses because they needed this concept of creation being procreation meaning it needed a man and a women. The one true God is not male or female but is transcendent of gender. God does not need a female counterpart to create. He created everything from nothing.
As it relates to salvation, Jesus said we must be born again. The tension with the word translated 'again' is that can mean 'again' or 'from above' or maybe even both. The John 3 text teaches us that we have to have a spiritual rebirth or be born from above. Only the Spirit can bring spiritual life. No actual pregnacy.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 15, 2008 6:03 PM
Ashpenaz,
Go back to Jesus referring to the Holy Spirit as 'he'. Jesus had four choices: masculine, feminine, neuter pronouns or repeat "the Holy Spirit". Jesus chose to use the masculine pronoun.
Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit. How does that happen if the Holy Spirit is a woman?
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 15, 2008 6:20 PM
Jerry,
I am touched. You care about my feelings. Please notice my sarcasm here. Why are you throwing out the old testament and the richness of it to fit into a very patriarchal archetype. Oh and one more thing we never said God the father, had a gender in order for him to have one he would have to have a penis or a vagina and be raised in a culture that reflected whatever that meant.
Again the shekinah (the glory of God that led Israel thru the desert, that sat btwn the cheribum on the ark) was feminine. I am just pointing that out. I hope that makes you feel better. God is neither a man nor a woman and he has transcendant characteristics. Some of these characteristics include masculinity and feminity (characteristics everyone on this planet shares.)
We all share the spiritual aspects of God and that includes both his masculinity and femininity as recorded in the imagery of Matthew, Isaiah and many other ancient texts. As a matter of fact since we are talking about a predominately Jewish document don't you think we should be studying from that perspective?
p
Posted by: payshun | January 15, 2008 6:36 PM
"Pneuma is not feminine in gender as someone said earlier, but is neuter. The corresponding Aramaic word ruach(sp) is feminine. What is key is what Jesus taught referring to the Holy Spirit and gender in John 14:26, 15:26' 16:8 and 16:13-14. Jesus calls Him the Holy Spirit (pneuma)and then uses the pronoun "he". Since Jesus said "He" I will also."
I stand corrected. What I find mystifying, though, is the kind of slow linguistic creep that a passage like this represents. Jesus spoke Aramaic, which means that he undoubtedly spoke about the Holy Spirit with a female gender. When the passage was translated into Greek, the noun became neuter and the personal pronoun became masculine. When the entire Bible was translated into Latin, which is how it was passed on for centuries, "spirit" itself became a masculine noun, destroying any connection with the original female-gendered "ruach."
In modern usage, this identification of the third person of the Trinity as masculine is broadly accepted. Is it unreasonable to detect the imprint of centuries of cultural prejudice here, and to conclude that the female Holy Spirit is not "re-imagined," but represents an original feature of the text that has been systematically suppressed?
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 15, 2008 6:39 PM
Another Anonymous,
I don't think this represents a linguistic creep. The problem is thinking a feminine word can only describe a feminine person. If we say in Greek that "Bob is wise" are we saying that Bob is a woman because "sophia" is a feminine in gender? Of course not.
The wide acceptance of the third person of the Trinity as masculine is not the result of centuries of cultural prejudice. The New Testament record, the Apostolic writings, and so on and so on all relate to the Holy Spirit as "He".
Payshun,
Shekinah is never used in the scripture. Later it is used by Jewish scholars , but never to relate the Presence of God as female.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 15, 2008 6:54 PM
The word shekinah may not appear in scripture but the word shakhan does.
Got to love wiki.
See Exodus 40:35 - "Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting, for the cloud rested [shakhan] upon it.
So again when the Spirit rested on Solomon's temple that was God's feminity making itself known to Solomon and the kingdom of Israel. According to Hebrew tradition it's the feminine divine aspect (shekinah) that makes prophets. I am not trying to change the language of how the bible was written but I am trying to show you (Jerry and others) that in the original language (espcially in the Old testament) God is both masculine and feminine and that every divine attribute should be worshipped and cherished.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 15, 2008 6:56 PM
Jeff,
When asked by a woman about this an orthodox rabbi had this to say:
"You are correct - one of the many interpretations of the Divine Revelation at Mount Sinai - and the accompanying descent of God's presence, the Shechina - was a form of betrothal.
God, being infinite, is comprised of all valued and attributes that are to be found in this world - including both the male and female characteristics."
p
Posted by: payshun | January 15, 2008 7:02 PM
"If we say in Greek that "Bob is wise" are we saying that Bob is a woman because "sophia" is a feminine in gender? Of course not."
That's an imperfect analogy, because you're using "wise" as the adjective in this case, while "sophia" is a (feminine) noun.
"The wide acceptance of the third person of the Trinity as masculine is not the result of centuries of cultural prejudice. The New Testament record, the Apostolic writings, and so on and so on all relate to the Holy Spirit as "He"."
All written by men. I'm sorry, but the former simply does not follow from the latter.
I'm not trying to be difficult here. I just find it amazing how the widespread acceptance of God as masculine is unquestioningly taken as normative, and any attempt to vindicate a feminine side to God has to prove itself. I'm not even a woman, and I'm bothered by this.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 15, 2008 7:14 PM
Payshun,
So if you 'rest' upon you Lazy-boy you become a woman? I think you are stretching to make this point. The man's name 'Shechaniah' is from the word 'shakhan' and the name means "Resting of God". A feminine verb can easily be used as a man's name. I am unfamiliar with any Hebrew tradition that there is a feminine divine aspect.
P, I agree with you that every divine attribute should be worshiped. But, you will have to show me better evidence that the original language supports your claim. Once again, Jesus said "he" when referring to the Holy Spirit. That is the strongest scriptural evidence I have found.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 15, 2008 7:22 PM
Another Anonymous,
"I'm not trying to be difficult here. I just find it amazing how the widespread acceptance of God as masculine is unquestioningly taken as normative, and any attempt to vindicate a feminine side to God has to prove itself. I'm not even a woman, and I'm bothered by this."
The point I'm addressing is those who have made the claim that the scripture states that the Holy Spirit is feminine. I haven't addressed a feminine or masculine side of God. (God is just God)
My reason for referring to the Apostles and Church Fathers is to refute your comment that this is a product of centuries of prejudice. If that is not what your saying, I apologize. My point is that the Old and New Testament and the earliest teachers do not present God the Holy Spirit as a feminine character. My sense is that I can trust Jesus teaching and those who walked with Him before I would trust a seminary prof. who thinks he/she came up with a hidden truth.
As for sophia, 1 Corinthians 1:30 says that Jesus "has became for us wisdom (sophia) from God" This does not speak to his gender but to the attribute of God's wisdom.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 15, 2008 7:43 PM
"As for sophia, 1 Corinthians 1:30 says that Jesus "has became for us wisdom (sophia) from God" This does not speak to his gender but to the attribute of God's wisdom."
Of course. The case in question is more as though the phrase "Paula is wise and knows everything" were translated as "Paul is wise; he knows everything." Furthermore, I checked my Greek New Testament, and the word that is translated as "he" is "ekeinos," which, according to the glossary, simply means "that one." I'm not a Greek scholar, but it sounds to me like the translation into English was done by a man.
If you don't think that God has a feminine or masculine character, why is this issue so important to you?
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 15, 2008 7:59 PM
Jeff,
As w/ most Christians many know next to nothing about Judaism. If more Christians knew about that ancient faith they would be running for the hills or at the very least dissavowing them as heretics. Judaism has a long history in believing in the feminine aspects of God. Kabbalah speaks a lot about this in the Zohar and other mystical writings but it is not limited to that.
In every branch of Judaism there is a very long history of recognizing the divine feminine. It can be traced in part to Abraham and the darkness he recieved in Chapter 15. That was not feminine, it was completely other but starting in Exodus it takes a very different turn. I could type a 50 page paper on this and still barely cover anything but there is a long historical record of seeing his feminity and cherishing it, first in him and then in ourselves.
I am not talking about merely the Holy Spirit. Jesus said "he" but others said "she" or recognized a feminine aspects as such both are acceptable. These others included the prophet Isaiah, Moses
Read the wiki article on the shekinah and you will at least be aware of how the Jews feel about God's feminity. Google it. The feminity of God is further described in the Talmud (which I am no scholar of.)
Rabbi Gershon has this to say at the top of his website:
PROMOTING AND RECOGNIZING THE LIGHT OF THE DIVINE FEMININE FACE OF THE ESSENCE WITH MANY NAMES THAT WE CALL - GOD
w w w home. earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id38.html
Remove the space btwn teh . and the e.
Also look at this website.
judaism.about.com/ od/ orthodoxfaqenkin/f/shekinah.htm
Get rid of teh spaces btwn teh slashes and you can read what an orthodox rabbi says.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 15, 2008 8:00 PM
Payshun,
I did read the Wiki article, I didn't find it to be credible. Please go back to your claim that the Old Testament teaches this doctrine. Your shekinah reference is unconvincing. How about more specifics on the Isaiah teachings. Let's hear from scripture, not Wiki.
I would like to stick to the Holy Spirit as feminine argument. So far we have a clear and direct reference from Jesus that the Holy Spirit is 'he'. Give me something as clear and direct. Could you possible be making the same mistake that those who can only see God as masculine make by saying the Holy Spirit is female?
I want to be very careful with this next thing, because I know that as a fellow Pentecostal that the work and the person of the Holy Spirit is important to you. So here goes, the teaching that God is the Father, the Holy Spirit is the Mom (or at least the feminine side) sounds more pagan than orthodox. If you haven't done so already, study the doctrine about the person of the Holy Spirit from your denominations doctrine. Maybe talk to your pastor. Be careful with Kabbalah.
Peace,
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 15, 2008 8:51 PM
Jeff -
As I pointed out in my last post, there is no clear and direct reference by Jesus to the Holy Spirit as he. The Greek text refers to "that one," which the English translator has taken the liberty of rendering as "he." Jesus spoke Aramaic, and he would have used a feminine-gendered word.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 15, 2008 9:18 PM
I once knew an Old Testament professor who used to give his freshman class the assignment to write a paper on mother-daughter relationships in the Bible. The joke is that there aren't any. Not one. The closest you get is the story of Naomi and Ruth, in which a mother keeps her dead son's property in the family by marrying her daughter-in-law to her nearest relative.
That being said, it seems to me that the Bible's valuation of fatherhood reflects a concerted attempt to *counter* sexism -- of the archetypal sort: the blood certainty of motherhood, the cultural contingency of fatherhood. At the time the stories of Genesis were being told, for example, a woman's brother was considered a more certain blood relative to his sister's children than a woman's husband. Such stories champion a father's role in the family, yes, but they also insist on his obligations, his fidelity, and his love, pointing to the paradigmatic paternal role of God.
The fact that patriarchal culture has used the Bible to justify gender-limited power and privilege is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I'm not sure that the answer is to emphasize the feminity of God. If anything, the Bible's valuation of fatherhood is an attempt to transform human nature, to move it away from the archetypal course of knowledge and expectation, to transcend what one knows to be materially true.
One might call the fatherhood of God a sacred fiction, like the idea that woman was born of a man's rib; it moves creation away from the worship of natural phenomena. One might even say that the image endures precisely because it has no archetypal analog. It can never be wholly absorbed and taken for granted in a culture. As soon as a culture uses this image to found its myths and assumptions, its unnatural status raises questions, keeping us conscious, enabling us to recognize our human limitations.
Fatherhood is linked to the spiritual in this context not because fathers are more important than mothers, but because, like knowledge of the God the Bible describes, knowledge of a father is not materially immediate. One knows one's father only by revelation, and, before the advent of DNA testing, this knowledge had to be accepted on faith. The image suggests that we have our portion in an unseen creator, in whose image we are made, whether we are male or female.
Again, I fully recognize the power of this metaphor to foster situations of gender privilege and exclusion. Still, there is something lost irretrievably when the images are changed simply for purposes of social engineering.
Posted by: vbl1952 | January 15, 2008 10:27 PM
Another Anonymous,
Sorry, I missed your last post.
My resources (3 sources)say Ekeinos is without question the masculine pronoun. I'll look again tomorrow into other sources to verify. No liberty was taken by the translator. The Apostle John (who knew Jesus personally and was part of the original audience of these comments) chose to use the above mentioned masculine pronoun.
The reason this is important is that it really looks like the old pagan religions trying to creep back in (Holy Spirit as she). Judaism was distinct in that it did not involve gods and goddesses but one true God who transcends time, space and gender. I am also hoping someone will give a good argument from scripture to support the claim. As of yet none has been made. Though there has been some attempts of reading the claim into scripture.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 15, 2008 10:27 PM
Jeff -
Please do check; my curiosity is piqued.
I actually completely agree with you that God transcends space, time and gender. That's why it mystifies me that people are willing to spend so much time defending the idea of God as exclusively masculine. It sounds to me like a lot of people have an enormous amount invested in that idea, and aren't willing to have it challenged. That in itself bothers me, and it's why I've been playing devil's advocate here. I'll stop now.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 15, 2008 10:43 PM
Actually Jeff,
I do have a pentacostal background. But God mercifully freed me from evangelicalism along time ago. I am a mystic a contemplative by calling. That means I look at aspects of Kabbalistic teaching and when they are compatable w/ orthodox Christian teaching I use it.
For example Kabbalistic theology includes a theology of every space being sacred. It's taken from Moses and the burning bush. The idea is that every space we walk into is sacred and a place of communion w/ God. So yes I am very careful w/ Kabbalah but I also recognize that some of it is quite helpful.
The fact that Kabbalistic teaching is based primarily after my guru Ezekiel I tend to take the stuff about the sacred throne very seriously.
The shekinah glory filling the temple in Isaiah is a feminine aspect of God's presence. Ask any rabbi they will tell you what I am telling you. I know you just want to go off of what Jesus said and all but his tradition is built off of something that includes both divine aspects. Jesus referred to this tradition in Mathew which is something you may be ignoring or unaware of.
Thanks Ngchen
Matthew 23:37 and its parallel Luke 13:34.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" (NIV)
That's not only feminine image/metaphor of God but it also creates a mother's protection of her young. Jesus himself recognizes this even when he is calling our Father Abba.
I would definitely talk to a few rabbis and study more old testament and the traditions that come w/ it.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 16, 2008 1:54 AM
Payshun,
Again show me some direct teaching from scripture to support your premise. Matthew is a great simile "as a hen" but it does not say the Holy Spirit is feminine. So far you have not brought a single scripture to back your claim. If you could write 50 pages on this subject, surely you could find at least one reference from scripture.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 16, 2008 7:46 AM
Another Anonymous,
I've enjoyed our conversation, have a great day.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 16, 2008 7:47 AM
Jeff -
I've enjoyed it too. :-)
BTW, I suggest you google "ekeinos gender" and read the first item that comes up in its entirety. I think you'll find that it supports both our arguments, by stating that 1) ekeinos is gender-neutral - it can mean he, she or it and 2) the Holy Spirit is also gender-neutral.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 16, 2008 8:14 AM
Hmmm. This is all interesting. I always (naively, apparently) believed that God was referred to as "He" in the English scriptures because (1) Jesus called Him 'daddy' (Abba) and (2) it is linguistically correct, in the English language, to use the pronoun "He" or "him" when referring to either an unknown gender, or a neutral - type of 'person.'
Some folks here are making me wonder if the Mormons aren't right!! Either that, or we are really, really concerned about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!!
Posted by: joekc | January 16, 2008 10:15 AM
Joekc, you are right on both counts, but the question is not how God is referred to linguistically, but about God's inherent nature. The question is whether we are to draw from the linguistic references the conclusion that God is specifically male and specifically not female, and I think there have been some very good cases presented here to show that that is not the conclusion that should be drawn (even though it's the conclusion that has traditionally been drawn). Given the implications, I don't think it's an angels-on-a-pin discussion at all.
Posted by: I and I | January 16, 2008 11:04 AM
Another Anonymous,
Thanks for the google tip. The second source was very helpful. I did some additional resource on ekeinos, it is not gender neuter. It is specifically masculine, feminine or neuter determined by the noun it is referring to. As it relates to the Holy Spirit it is sometimes neuter and sometimes masculine, but in no case feminine.
Some try to make a case on Holy Spirit gender because Jesus said "another" (allon in Greek) Paraclete. Which means of the same kind. I think this refers to divinity, not gender.
I wouldn't argue (at least not much) that the Holy Spirit is gender neutral.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 16, 2008 12:38 PM
If anyone is still following this, what the second source says is that the gender of "ekeinos" depends on the noun it modifies. Since "pneuma" (spirit) is neuter, "ekeinos" is neuter as well. General readers should also understand that Greek normally does not use pronouns at all for the subject of an action. Thus, the passage in question reads, roughly: But when that one comes, the spirit of truth, will guide you into all truth. Will not speak for self; will speak only what hears, and will tell you what is yet to come, etc.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 16, 2008 1:50 PM
God is God and can take whatever form God choses to take. Cultures of the past have spoken of God in masculine terms and we continue to do so; "God the Father, God the Son...." The Immaculate Conception continued the gender roles. All of this discussion reflects more about the limitations we are trying to inflict on God, our image of God and and our efforts to define God than much of anything else. Does this really matter?
LB
Posted by: LB | January 16, 2008 4:39 PM
Let's hear what Wisdom's got to say on the subject.
Does not wisdom cry? And understanding put forth her voice? She stands in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. She cries at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors:
"Unto you, Oh men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man. Oh you simple, understand wisdom: and you fools, be of an understanding heart. hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opning of my lips shall be right things. For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words om my mouth are in righteoiusness; ther is nothing froward (twisted) or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understands and right to them that find knowledge. Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it. I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.
The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancey, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate. Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am undersatnding; I have strength. By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth. I love them that love me; and those that seek me eartly shall find me. Riches and honor are with me; yeaa, durable riches and righteousness. My frUit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver.
I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: that I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.
The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settlesd, before the hills was I brought forth: while as yet he han not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upn the face of the depth: when he established the clouds above: when he strengthned the fountains of the deep. When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. Now therefore hearken unto me, oh you children: for blessed are they tht keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.
Blessed is the man that hears me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whosoever finds me fins life and shall obtain favor of the Lord. But he that sins against me wrongs his own soul: all they tht hate me love death." -PROVERBS 8
Posted by: Barbara | January 16, 2008 4:53 PM
Jeff,
You are reading scripture from a english/ western perspective. Try reading it from a Hebrew one. If you did that you would see that the similie is actually a metaphor and that metaphor has feminine characteristics. Oh and I was mainly referring to the Father and saying that the Father is a both masculine and feminine. If the Father has both in him so does the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
You are stuck on gender when I use the word characteristics. God the Father doesn't have a gender, He is other but He does have both characteristics (masculinity and feminity) in Him. You have shown no scriptures that make Him specifically masculine. Oh and again that scripture I quoted depends on interpretation. You say it shows nothing I disagree. I think we should leave it at that.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 16, 2008 5:05 PM
Darling, you're stuck on you. I didn't write it with anyone in mind or any one else's opinion. I shared a perspective, which is obviously different from yours.
I don't think we are the body, but that it is a vehicle to experience this realm, nor do I think we are our minds, but they are tools for our transcendence. If the mind is not used as a tool for transcendence, it can easily become a prison to our souls.
Posted by: Barbara | January 17, 2008 8:14 AM
I think when we speak of the divine Lord in exclusively male terms, it causes our mind to perceive God in a efeminated state. (The opposite of emasculated.)
Posted by: Barbara | January 17, 2008 8:18 AM
In both the Hebrew and the Greek texts, God specifically identifies himself in the masculine form. This does not imply sexuality but rather how He has chosen to reveal Himself. He calls Himself by the masculine name, Father, Son, and even the Holy Spirit appears in the masculine. The only exception to this would be the usage of the neutral term for the Spirit found in Romans 8 that the KJV translators translated as "It" rather than "He." This has been corrected in modern translations.
To try to put God in either faminine form or masculine form is pointless since He is neither since He is not a man (Numbers 23:19) but God has revealed Himself in the masculine unto people (Exodus 3:14; John 1:1-17).
Posted by: Roy | January 17, 2008 3:28 PM
God is NOT a person,place or thing.God has no gender .Neither is God a noun, verb or object.God can never be defined or categorized for to do so would place human limits on God .God cannot be comprehended or understood by God's creatures or creation. All we see are mere glimpses, traces ,symbols and metaphors of GOD, mere weak and meager representations of God. GOD Just Simply IS !
Best description we may have from Divine inspiration through Hebrew Scripture "I AM, WHO AM!"
Peace my Sisters and Brothers,
Jeni
Posted by: Jen Marcus | January 17, 2008 4:00 PM
Well God actually identified himself as love. So again How GOD defines himself and that word is purely up to him but to say that he doesn't identify aspects of himself to his people is wrong. He does idenitify divine feminity. It's part of the very nature of God. Does that mean it's knowable? Yes and no. We can not know God in his entirety but we can know God thru his Spirit in union w/ his word and the lives of the saints. That's a blind trust and faith.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 17, 2008 4:11 PM
Wow, what a lively conversation! Nice to know people are wrestling with this. God loves a good wrestling match --just as much as God loves preparing a table for us.
Stereotypical gender roles too easily get in the way in that last sentence, agreed?
A lot of this reminds me that we still labor under the divisions that language types engender; remember Babel?
The approach to this issue might be better served by starting with first principles. "God created humankind in His own image, male and female created He them." Here, the modern English translation encapsulates the central controversy --is God male in gender, as the pronouns suggest, or is God's image somehow only expressed fully as "male and female?"
Two opposing efforts are at work in the language; categorizing and analogizing. Obviously, God struggles with a formidable limitation when revealing Himself to us: our imaginations are often bounded by our experience, while our experiences are often negative. Our categories are therefore colored with bad analogies.
No created thing or category, by itself, can describe the totality of its Creator. The choice of a particular gendered pronoun just might be related to its intended effect, rather than its descriptive power.
Wow, now there's an offensive thought. Why would God choose to use a male pronoun, while making it patently clear that His image is "male and female?"
I submit one possibility: in the cultural milieu of the first writing of the Genesis material, there was nothing so obvious than that God (or "the gods" in unrevelatory writings) was either female or had significant female characteristics. We are obviously the children of some "cosmic womb" (sic).
The choice of a pronoun setting up a marked distinction from this fundamental observation could have been for the purpose of communicating something further than our origin.
While debatable, a recurrent observation is that cultures founded upon the notion of a decidedly male "icon" are robust and adventurous, while those which highlight the feminine are more cooperative and assimilating. I see all these (admittedly stereotyped --the Amazons come to mind) characteristics as admirable, but can understand why God might choose to emphasize a robust individuality.
There are times when we must stand alone, against, it would seem, the whole world --as many of my sisters in the faith are doing here, in a holy quest to remind us of God's feminine aspects as well.
What we must not do is anachronistically import our gender wars into the milieu of ancient Scripture. It's much too simple a stereotype to say that men have always dominated, and women have always been oppressed. Anyone remember "Fiddler on the Roof" or My Big Fat Greek Wedding?" Even in patriarchal cultures, women almost always find a way to assert their mutuality.
The dangers in trusting our imaginations to lead us beyond the "errors" of Scripture are obvious. Either the Scriptures are authoritative revelation, superintended by God Himself, or a merely human creation which holds no claim over the bounds of our imagination.
There it is again, the clash of categorizing vs. analogizing. May God walk with you in the struggle, and give you rest, both from the tortured logic of some kinds of blinded Biblical "scholarship" and the endless speculation of unfettered imagination.
God has spoken in the Scriptures, and is "genderful" beyond our imaginations, as the Triunity of Persons in the Godhead interrelate. Be warmed, men and women, and know that we all have a holy place in God's working and purposes.
Posted by: Guy Coe | January 17, 2008 7:41 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?