http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=HPIB,HPIB:2005-19,HPIB:en&q=goddess+religions

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 6/15/2006 11:17:34 AM (GMT-5)

Presbyterians Weigh Worship Alternatives
Monday, June 19, 2006 6:41 AM EDT
The Associated Press
By RICHARD N. OSTLING

...

Among the feminist-inspired, gender-inclusive options:

— "Mother, Child and Womb"

— "Lover, Beloved, Love"

— "Creator, Savior, Sanctifier"

— "Rock, Redeemer, Friend"

— "King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love."

Two professors at the Presbyterians' Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Andrew Purves and Charles Partee, said there is potential danger that "we not only lose the ground for our language for God, we in fact lose the Trinity. We lose God."

"We do not need a diluted, metaphorical Trinity; rather, we need our confidence in the Christian doctrine of God to be restored," they said.

Other critics noted that Jesus' most famous prayer begins by addressing "Our Father."

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 7/14/2006 3:31:49 PM (GMT-5)

Meph, one more thing to add to your list (perhaps?)

God is expressed as a woman enduring birth-pangs while enduring the suffering caused by the sinful acts of human-kind... at least that's what I noticed in Freitheim's description (Suffering of God). Interesting too... most of the time in the book, Freitheim doesn't mention God as a "He". Either just the word "God" is used (quite often) or the poss. pronoun "her" is used, specifically in chapter 7 ("God suffers because").

However, regarding your original questions: "if a Christian were to acknowledge God self-revelation as "Father" as being true, but, internally, primarily relating to God as more of a maternal figure, would this be problematic in any real way? Could a person fully recognize God's androgyny while still mainly relating to God as Goddess on a internal level? If not, why not?"   

Hmmm... I'm not sure if shifting the internal scales to more of a maternal figure than a paternal figure would help us to perceive God in a truer light. Granted, I'm becoming more conviced that using masculine pronouns for God also presents an inaccurate picture of God (you certainly got the ball rolling in my paradigm shift there), but would an internal emphasis on the feminine/maternal balance the external emphasis on the masculine/paternal? At this point I'm not sure. I think it would be good to acknowledge God as something like "thank you for being my mother who cares, who has lamented for me, and has nurtured me"... but I'm still so used to using the masculine and acknowledging the paternal that it almost seems wierd to say that.

I guess what I need to learn to do more is to give a more balanced acknowledgement of the maternal roles/qualities that God displays.

But you know what... even calling God "Dad" is difficult (let alone saying "Mom") because I'm so used to hearing the more distant "Father".

It's interesting you mention this because I was just listening to a radio broadcast from Greg Koukl (don't know if you've heard of him) and he was commenting on how the P.C.USA (presbyterian church?) voted to recommend new gender-neutral terminology in thinking of the trinity. An example is "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" (For father, son, holy spirit) or "Creator Savior Sanctifier".. But one they recommended was "Mother, Child, Womb". Hmmm... Anyway, Greg Koukl was using a similar argument you mentioned here (emphasis mine): that Jesus revealed God as Father, Son, Holy Spirit so that's how we should address God. I'm not sure about that... but, the question is why DID Jesus command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Were there cultural reasons for that at the time?

Hey Mark, the main thing I was getting at (and I think Meph is too - Meph let me know if I've got it wrong) was not to throw out the "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" identifiers of the trinity, but to not limit our understanding of God in just those terms.

If God were purely a male figure, I'd have no problem with that (so I'd be neither tolerant nor intolerant of it, but I'd simply accept it)... but the thing is, we know that God isn't a purely male figure. God displays characteristics that are also female. But in our minds sometimes we limit our perspective & understanding of God in purely male terms. So I think the recommendations of the PCUSA wasn't to throw out the traditional terms of the trinity, but instead to recognize that there's more to the persons of the Trinity than what the titles connote.

So the idea of political correctness didn't even cross my mind here ... We're just thinking about how in our minds we can gain a fuller understanding and more accurate representation of who God is.

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 7/17/2006 5:35:25 PM (GMT-5)

OK.  Meph Man.  If you are out there, what do you think of this? 

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 7/17/2006 7:01:27 PM (GMT-5)

A hymn by Brian Wren

Bring many names, beautiful and good,
celebrate, in parable and story,
holiness in glory, living, loving God.
Hail and hosanna! Bring many names!

Strong mother God, working night and day,
planning all the wonders of creation,
setting each equation, genius at play:
Hail and hosanna, strong mother God!

Warm father God, hugging every child,
feeling all the strains of human living,
caring and forgiving till we're reconciled:
Hail and hosanna, warm father God!

Old, aching God, grey with endless care,
calmly piercing evil's new disguises,
glad of good surprises, wiser than despair:
Hail and hosanna, old aching God!

Young, growing God, eager, on the move,
saying no to falsehood and unkindness,
crying out for justice, giving all you have:
Hail and hosanna, young, growing God!

Great, living God, never fully known,
joyful darkness far beyond our seeing,
closer yet than breathing, everlasting home:
Hail and hosanna, great, living God!

The commentary on the hymn.

http://www.gbod.org/worship/events/faithsing/manynames.html

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 7/18/2006 1:51:19 PM (GMT-5)

VFG wrote:

I did a thought experiment a few days ago though... thinking of God as "Mother", and it sorta got me into a dualistic mode of thinking about God. The concept of "Mother Earth" kept getting in the way... and also the way how Wiccans view their gods got in the way too. So, I'm re-thinking this whole thing... because over-correction may be a bad thing. I'm some what of the opinion  that perhaps most major non-Christian religions got started due to either over-correction or stark misrepresentation of who God truly is (I'm still thinking this through though). So would our "over correction" end up leading into more problems?  (Meph & Brandon, I'd like to hear what you think about this too. Sorry I couldn't get to reading & thinking about your posts Brandon. These past few days have been a bit hectic.)

Well I would think that would be a potential danger regardless, as I think we are trying to "fit" a transcendent God into a particular metaphorical model.  One of the characteristics of this danger is the idea of making particular models into idols with all the accompanying negative connotations that attach themselves to it over time.  My beef is not just that God is "Father" but it is the attending patriarchal character of such language. It is that the ENTIRE STRUCTURE of divine-human and human-human relationships is understood in a patriarchal FRAMEWORK. Not only do we see the NATURE of God through this matrix but we understand our RELATIONS WITH God AND EACH OTHER through it as well. It is not only the question of the images themselves--God as King, Judge, father, husband, Lord, Master, are patriarchal, but that this is a Western way of life which describes patterns of governance, at national, ecclesiastical, business and family levels. And it is this total, overarching patriarchalism which contributes to the sense of exclusion for women and in turn prompts their criticisms of the irrelevance of much Western religious language to them.