 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:19 AM (GMT -6) |   | According to the Open view God inaugurates a genuine give and take relationship with humanity in such a way that He does not always get what He wants. This opens up the possibility that God’s love is not returned. I would like to analyze the way in which we talk about God and test our limits for anthropomorphism.
When someone doesn’t love God back He is hurt is He not? We might say God’s heart is broken. Is this an anthropomorphism or do we mean this literally?
If we mean this literally does God need healing? Certainly God would be the most well adjusted being but that does not rule out His feelings getting hurt since open theism attributes literal feelings to God. There’s just something that sounds off to my theological ears to suggest that God might be in need of healing—or even therapy as the Onion article wittingly suggested?. Yet it seems it would follow. What do y’all think?
—Wislawa
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:21 AM (GMT -6) | | glamdring777
06/18/01 12:25 AM
RE: Does God need healing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great question Wislawa. You are so creative. Hope you have a few more comments for this thread.
Mortal men speak of broken hearts when they lose their greatest loves. Is God able to lose the greatest love? He is love.
The greatest love a man could lose would be the love of God. When we are in Christ, we are in love with the love of our lives. That love heals the loss of all other loves.
I don't think God the Father was wounded like we are until he became a man. In Christ God knows all our suffering, hurt, and woundedness. They say his heart literally burst when he died on the cross. Perhaps that happened when he cried out in anquish, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," as he took on the sin of the world and became seperated from the Father losing a love like none other.
Christ has borne our stripes and felt the pain of all men. God raised him up to glory with the resurrection.
God not only healed the wounds of Christ but he also brings healing to all men through him.
If God needed healing, it happened when he glorified Christ.
whatdayathink?
glamdring
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Wislawa
06/19/01 8:00 AM
RE: RE: Does God need healing? A few more comments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few more comments
I’m intrigued by your necessary condition for a broken heart. You say, “Mortal men speak of broken hearts when they lose their greatest loves.”
I would say that mortal women and men also speak of broken hearts when they lose loves other than their greatest, that is if we are simply defining a term by its use. Still your point is well taken. If your greatest love remains in tact losing other loves will not spell the end of your world. But it still hurts even if it doesn’t ruin your life. And hurts still need healing.
You also said, “In Christ God knows all our suffering, hurt, and woundedness. They say his heart literally burst when he died on the cross. Perhaps that happened when he cried out in anquish, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," as he took on the sin of the world and became seperated from the Father losing a love like none other. Christ has borne our stripes and felt the pain of all men. God raised him up to glory with the resurrection. God not only healed the wounds of Christ but he also brings healing to all men through him. If God needed healing, it happened when he glorified Christ.”
Wislawa: So it seems that God only has a broken heart when Christ died and that the resurrection healed that hurt in God. It should be noted that Christ kept his scars. Is there any reason to believe that the Father did not also keep His? And as I said in the ‘How does God heal’ thread I have my doubts about how healed something really is if it still has scares. You can lose an arm and have a healed stump of a shoulder but that would hardly make up for losing your arm.
My original question was not about Christ, however; rather it was about the lost. If I follow you it seems like your saying the fact that the lost are lost doesn’t hurt God that much because the Holy Trinity ‘still has each other’ as they say. In that case I’d feel a little slighted by God if I turn out to be one of the lost in that I don’t even show up on His emotional radar screen blinded by His own egotistical self love. Okay so I got a little carried away with the egotistical stuff but that’s easy to do. (Anyone read Pipers book “Desiring God”? He makes God into the biggest egotist one can imagine. He even claims that when the Bible says, “Love seeks not its own” it applies to us but not God! As if God were not Love itself!!! Apparently the definition of love doesn’t apply to the word it defines!!! As if Love seeks not its own were not God seeks not His own!!! Do I smell heresy cooking?)
Well enough of that. Let me know what you think. What is God’s emotional disposition towards the lost? Does He care enough to hurt? If so does this not stretch the bounds of anthropomorphism to suggest He might need healing, even therapy? If not could anyone love such a heartless and self-absorbed God?
It’s tea time on the merry-go-round
Wislawa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:23 AM (GMT -6) | | glamdring777
06/20/01 11:30 PM
love hurts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess in a way I was defining a term by it's use, but I'm not sure what you mean by the necessary condition. I was just using an example. Course I could have stated that, but clearly writing is not my
strong suit at this point.
I agree that all hurt needs healing, but I think there are degrees between a 'hurt' and woundedness.
I admit I did exemplify God's love for Christ over the lost, and in a way they do share a greater love at this point than we share with them, but mainly I was trying to think of an event that could have truly wounded God, and I came up with Christ's death.
I do believe that God is hurt by the lost but I am having trouble seeing God in woundedness.
When we are hurt physically our bodies normally automatically begin to heal themselves. If medical efforts or prayer are applied it would indicate a larger 'wound' that would most likely take more time to heal. When healing was 'complete' there would be a scar.
Spiritually when people are hurt, they are immediately ministered to by the holy spirit and can begin to heal.
If more assistance is called for it may be that the hurt was wounding and will take more ministry and time in God's presense. When they are completely healed the memory of it will still exist, like the physical scar.
Woundedness seems to entail a slower healing, or a longer one if you will, even though it could originate in a small hurt that was allowed to fester. I just can't see how God could have a slow healing. I mean I could see how he could grieve for a particular person throughout their whole life, but I don't understand how God could be hurt and not have instantaneous healing of a kind. Your turn, go for it.
but don't spin me too fast. I don't want to drop my tea.
glam
ps Instead of scars being proof of incomplete healing couldn't they be badges of honor?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:24 AM (GMT -6) | | ModesofThought
06/21/01 9:07 AM
RE: love hurts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
wassup.
Two things:
1. One biblical example comes readily to mind. The entire book of Hosea. God instructs Hosea to take a whore for a wife as an illustration of the pain God goes through in pursuing a covenant relationship with unfaithful people. This seems to illustrate quite clearly the suffering of God. In fact, there is a fantastic book with that title, "The Suffering of God" by Terrance Fretheim. Check it out. Well worth it.
2. I happen to know that at least one of you is a woman and I suspect another one to be, what's with the masculine pronouns? Both generally for humanity "man" and "He" for God. This is not necessary and patently unhelpful.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:25 AM (GMT -6) | | glamdring777
06/21/01 10:00 AM
RE: RE: love hurts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Modes,
Thanks for the input. You are right about the book of Hosea, after about seven years of marriage, I had it almost memorized.
As for the gender thing, right again, I am female so I deeply appreciate all the people on here being egalitarian. In fact when I was trying to compose that post, I thought twice about using the word 'man'but I when I tried to do it another way it was so awkward. How do authors write He/She? Sorry I was 'unhelpful'. I ask forgiveness for any offense I may have caused.
How is capitalizing the 'he' for God tied into all this?
mad love
glam
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:25 AM (GMT -6) | | ghost-dog-girl
06/21/01 10:25 AM
RE: RE: RE: love hurts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of confusing gender things, Wislawa seems to have simultaneously convinced the guys on this forum that he is a girl, while the girls are convinced he is a guy (I’m with Glam on this one). Way to go Wa! Your discourse has deconstructed the most entrenched dichotomy of all. GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Wislawa
06/21/01 11:42 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: love hurts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does God remember the lost? I think I remember reading somewhere in the Bible that God forgets the damned—that they are blotted out of their memory. Is this just a hyperbolae?
Glam: “When healing was ‘complete’ there would be a scar”
Wislawa: Okay we should define our terms. My conception of healing goes beyond yours. To you it seems that healing can leave a residue, a scar or a memory or what have you, and still be healing. I’m questioning this. Based on experience memories have a knack for reopening wounds so that the process of wounding and the process of healing is not a closed off thing, something that needs to be passed though and ‘completed.’ Rather healing of this sort seems to never be complete always wounding and always continuing. If I have some particular memories from this life in my head throughout heaven I can never render meaningful the idea of being healed there.
To me healing an evil means making things become such that it is as if the evil had never happened. This is my conception of heaven and maybe its flawed but as I see it a healing of this sort would be more through than yours.
Is heaven perfect? Would it be better to be healed with scars/memory or healed in such a way that there are no scars and no memory? When we go to a surgeon don’t we usually think that the surgeon did a better job of healing us if she/he could do so without leaving a scar than if she/he did?
Let me come at it in a different way. My friend was in a car accident a few years ago and she/he is now paralyzed from the waist down. She/he is healthy and has healed as much as she/he can. Is this healing? She/he often says to me how she/he is looking forward to heaven when she/he will be healed and able to walk again. But by your definition she/he is already as healed as healed needs to be. Doesn’t this leave something to be desired in you? I return to my previous example about loosing an arm and having the stub heal up. In one sense it is healed but in a truer sense it is not. I’m looking for a healing that will reverse wounds not just cover them. I’m looking for an undoing.
Glam: I do believe that God is hurt by the lost but I am having trouble seeing God in woundedness.
Wislawa: Me too.
Modes: “I happen to know that at least one of you is a woman and I suspect another one to be, what's with the masculine pronouns? Both generally for humanity "man" and "He" for God. This is not necessary and patently unhelpful.”
Wislawa: I challenge you to show me where I have used the masculine pronoun excessively in reference to humanity. I might have by accident but I try to be pretty careful about it. As for God the Father and God the Son I do use a masculine pronoun but that is only because I haven’t found an alternative that doesn’t make things worse. I try to use feminine pronouns for the Spirit because I read a really good argument for doing so. But to refer to the Father and Son in either impersonal or egalitarian terms has, in my view, just as many or more pitfalls than using masculine references. My main aim is to preserve God’s relationally. I am with you in the spirit of your concern but the way I see it masculine references is the least of three evils. But I’m willing to change if you can show me a less evil way.
G-D-G: Speaking of confusing gender things, Wislawa seems to have simultaneously convinced the guys on this forum that he is a girl, while the girls are convinced he is a guy (I’m with Glam on this one). Way to go Wa! Your discourse has deconstructed the most entrenched dichotomy of all.”
Wislawa: In the words of Paul, “I have become all things to all people.”
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | ModesofThought
06/21/01 2:42 PM
RE: RE: RE: love hurts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to use "God" whenever possible, even if it seems more natural to use a personal pronoun, there is sort of acknowledgement of transcendence which is maintained in doing that. God is above male and female distinctions, of course all beleive this, and of course God is relational, not all beleive this equally clearly. So, using trinitarian language is helpful as well. We can speak of God using langauge like "the community of God", or sometimes Godself works just fine. If one must use personal pronouns, then I suggest:
1. Use She, "He" has been used for about a gazillion years, about a gazillion years of "She" might help balance it out. This is partly tongue in cheek, but only partly. We should feel free to use "She" until we get ourselves and others used to the langauge. It serves at the very least to relativize the "He" language. It will stimulate thoughts like "Oh yeh, I guess God is not really a huge male being of some sort."
2. Some choose to alternate ("She" one time and then "He" the next) or use a the more awkward (S)he or some other such thing.
3. If that is all too radical for you, at least don't capitalize the "He", keep it lowercase. But I will say, every time I see "he", for God, it just reminds me of the problems that sort of thing causes...It distracts me.
Therefore, as I said at the top, I try to avoid pronouns. God is personal, but God is much more than what our personal pronouns can capture. When we do use them, wome of that mystery/transcendence is stripped away. "God" and "Godself" and "Community of God" have worked well for me. It does take some time to train your brain, but I think speaking truthfully about God is worth it. It is also worth it for the sake of showing that one half of the human race is not more like God than the other.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Wislawa
06/21/01 4:14 PM
Wislawa's coming out party!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve witnessed people use She to refer to God who had to end up doing a lot of explaining in order to keep some more fundamentally minded people from flipping a lid. If I use She I feel like I’m picking a fight. Now I have no problem standing my ground, and I like being catalytic, but I don’t like picking fights. (That's why I like theology instead of polotics.) Especially since, as you pointed out, all alternative terms are problematic. I read an essay by Pinnock about inclusive language that helped me not feel so guilty in using He and Him. As far as the caps thing goes it was something I was trained to do in Sunday school. I’m not doing it for emphasis, we were taught it was a matter of respect. Like how the Bible always caps LORD. I’m seeking a way to express in English some sort of difference between God’s name and other names—like how Yahweh used to not ever be spoken and seldom even written by some sects of Judaism.
I suppose since this is a pretty progressive forum I don’t have to worry about anyone feeling like I’m picking a fight with them if I us She from now on. Like you said it might take me a while for me to get into the habit. I’d definitely opt for it rather than ‘community of God’ to save my wrists from carple-tunnel (sp?).
And now for the coming out part:
Truth is I always wished Jesus was a girl. It’s hard for me as a male to think of being very intimate with a guy. I secretly want to kiss Jesus in my imagination. Have I said too much?
Wislawa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:29 AM (GMT -6) | | ghost-dog-girl
06/21/01 6:54 PM
RE: Wislawa's coming out party!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa, I know what you mean about people flipping a lid when you refer to God as “She.” Why do people get so uptight about calling God anything other than “Him” or “him” when there is no theological justification for this restriction?
I know that capitalizing “he” for God is simply out of reverence, but the force of the reaction against calling God “she” suggests to me that it has become deeper than that. Even if I am wrong about this, in a culture in which people are more sensitive to gender references than they used to be (even many feminists used exclusively male pronouns until the last fifty years), we ought to revise this practice and find less problematic ways to represent our reverence for God. (BTW, Lord is capitalized in the Bible not out of reverence, but rather to indicate that it is a translation of the tetragrammaton.) The fact that people have so much invested in the use of exclusively male terms for God underscores the need for alternatives that help us overcome overly anthropomorphic conceptions of God (i.e. God as male).
As for wishing Jesus was a girl, it was actually quite common in medieval mysticism to conceive of Christ as a woman. Read Julian of Norwich. Also, in Dante’s writing, the lines between Christ and a young woman named Beatrice become very blurred. I find this fascinating. If you’re interested, check out La Vita Nuova. Charles Williams wrote about their relationship too, but I can’t remember the title.…
Some biblical scholars make a pretty good case that before Christ was incarnated he shows up as Sophia (Wisdom) in the Old Testament. For example, in Proverbs 8 Sophia says, “When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep…then I was beside him, like a master worker; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always…” Sound like John 1? Scholars tend to focus on the gnostic influences of John’s “logos” (which is neuter in Greek) passage, and neglect the Hebraic texts which he surely drew upon as well (such as Gen. 1 and Prov. 8). Just some food for thought. GDG
p.s. If you’re interested in this topic and you haven’t yet read Elizabeth Johnson’s She Who Is, I highly recommend it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:30 AM (GMT -6) | | trosie
06/22/01 9:17 AM
RE: RE: Wislawa's coming out party!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG: "Why do people get so uptight about calling God anything other than “Him” or “him” when there is no theological justification for this restriction?"
I am absolutely for women's rights (hey, we are ALL equal), but I have a hard time not seeing this theological justification that you are speaking about. Unless the bible has been wrongly translated, I see time and time again throughout the scriptures where God is referred to as the FATHER. Jesus came down as a MAN. Jesus prayed to the FATHER. He referred to God the FATHER when teaching... From all these references of God I get a picture of a MALE entity -- isn't this theological justification?
I don't really get hung up on whatever terminology people use when referring to God, (as long as it's respectful), but I also see throughout scripture that God is called FATHER, the SON, came down from heaven in the form of a MAN,... Why then would we start referring to God as SHE?
GDG, Modes, Wislawa: I really DO want to understand where you are coming from with this "she" thing in regards to God? I am open
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:31 AM (GMT -6) | | ModesofThought
06/22/01 10:11 AM
RE: RE: RE: Wislawa's coming out party!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One simple response is that there are many women who grow up their whole lives reading the Bible and seeing exactly what you described and assuming that not only is salvation first for the Jews, then for the Gentiles, but the Bible is first for men, then indirectly for women. This tragic and erroneous. The THEOLOGICAL truth of the matter is that God does not have a penis.
When we forget this, the Bible becomes a man's book, by default...Christianity a man's religion--just look at the Catholic patriarchal structure...leaders of faith, to be fully realized and respected, must be male. Not by necessity mind you, but by implication...wrongly drawn from a historically necessary concession on God's part in becoming incarnate (please note, there are many concessions involved in the process of bridging the gap between the divine and the human!! The scandal of particularity reigns).
This is a subtle problem that has damaged the church for a very long time. Trosie, has it really never bothered you that the Bible, as it is usually translated appears to be written by men, to men, for men? If not, you are an unusual woman indeed. It bothers me, as a man who loves women as true equals (not some sort of "equal but don't do these things that only men should do" bs Gal. 3:28), because there are many women in my life who are hindered by this. Just because one is accustomed to a problem does not mean that it is not a problem. Here is a more relevant discussion...
Yes is it true that God became incarnate as Jesus, a man. But there are several reasonable explanations for this, none of which indicate that it was BETTER that Jesus be male, only necessary because of incidental forms of cultural oppression and sin. Here are two:
1. The patriachal structure of the culture would have prevented a woman, even God as a woman, from having any sort of voice or authority over men. Thankfully, this is much less the case today.
2. The Jewish line of descent was established through men, again, an unfortunate cultural accomodation, but one which requires that the one to fulfill the prophecies would be male.
As an aside: The second person of the Trinity has been associated with Sophia as GDG has indicated, that is clearly a feminine form of God in the Old Testament. Many argue that the Spirit should be spoken of as feminine, as Wislawa indicated.
If we are to be about "tearing down walls," this is a big one indeed!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | ghost-dog-girl
06/22/01 12:14 PM
RE: RE: RE: Wislawa's coming out party!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trosie, thank you for the question. The Bible certainly refers to God in masculine terms, such as “Father.” And, just as Jesus teaches us to pray to “Our Father in heaven,” we ought to continue to use these references.
But unlike our current language for God, biblical references for God are not exclusively masculine. The current insistence on exclusively masculine references for God leads to unbiblical and theologically incorrect conflation of godliness and manliness. The gender of Jesus is not a revelation of the gender of God. God the Father does not mean God the male, with stereotypical male traits. On the contrary, when God is referred to as Father in the Hebrew Bible, it often involves stereotypically female traits, such as compassion (Psalm 103:13) and giving birth (Deut. 32:18, here God is referred to as “eloah”). The Hebrew Bible also portrays God in explicitly maternal terms (e.g. Isa. 43:14; 49:15; 66:13). (One reason this maternal imagery is not more prevalent was because Israel’s pagan neighbors worshiped fertility gods and goddesses, and the God of Israel transcended human gender.)
The creation story in Genesis is the biblical and theological foundation for God as both feminine and masculine. In Gen. 1:1, God is referred to as “elohim,” a masculine word in Hebrew. In Gen. 1:2, God is referred to as “ruach elohim,” (trans. “the spirit, breath, or wind of God”) a feminine word in Hebrew. The verb that is usually translated “hovered” or “swept over” in this verse is also found in Deut. 32:11, where God is described as a mother eagle hovering over her young. (Deut. 32 is the Song of Moses, and is considered one of the most ancient and sacred Hebrew texts.) When God decided to “create humankind in our image, according to our likeness” (Gen. 1:24—note the pronouns!), God created them male and female (Gen. 1:27).
There is absolutely no biblical or theological basis for talking about God in exclusively masculine terms. Both male and female image Her. GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:33 AM (GMT -6) | | trosie
06/22/01 5:42 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Wislawa's coming out party!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes states: "The THEOLOGICAL truth of the matter is that God does not have a penis."
trosie: I never actually thought about this, but you are right! I keep thinking about the scripture reference that talks about how "there is now neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek...." We are ALL made in the image of God!
Modes asks: "Trosie, has it really never bothered you that the Bible, as it is usually translated appears to be written by men, to men, for men? If not, you are an unusual woman indeed."
trosie: I must be unusual because I have NEVER viewed a man as being superior to a woman, hence I have never felt that they are more deserving of the bible than women! Women have been instrumental throughout biblical history... OBVIOUSLY God respects and uses women in accomplishing things just as God uses men. Somewhere along the line it must have been ingrained deep within me that Jesus came for ALL OF US. In fact, when a man (or anyone for that matter) considers themself above a woman (or anyone) I immediately loose any amount of reverence and respect that they may have merited.
GDG said: "when God is referred to as Father in the Hebrew Bible, it often involves stereotypically female traits, such as compassion (Psalm 103:13) and giving birth"
trosie: I can see this. Actually, come to think about it, I most often feel a closeness to God when I embrace the more female qualities of God's character.
GDG: "God created them male and female (Gen. 1:27)...Both male and female image Her."
trosie: AMEN! Yes, indeed, we are ALL made in the image of God. I guess I can see God being beyond gender. GOD IS "I AM"!
Thanks for your feedback Modes and GDG! I personally feel most comfortable in referring to God as "Father" and talking about God in male terms (this isn't an issue for me), BUT I am TOTALLY open and accepting of others calling God "Her"
trosie <><
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:34 AM (GMT -6) | | GregBoyd
06/25/01 10:56 PM
God as Father/ Mother
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a few wee little thoughts
1) In most evangelical contexts, if one refers to God as "she," whatever point you may want to make will be instantaneously lost. The topic will have to now be, why do you call God "she"? Language is all about convention, and if you are going to communicate you must use the convention -- or, the only thing you will communicate is your disagreement with the convention.
2) An alternative way of modifying convention is to do it covertly -- which means very subtly and slowly. In this case, one might slowly call attention more and more to God's sterotypical feminine attributes, refer to God as "mother" in context where that will not be outlandish, point out that Scripture does this, etc...
3) I don't know the extent to which the fact that males have historically tended to be more aggressive is due to culture or biology. But I wonder if it might be that God is referred to more in male terms rather than female terms in Scripture is rooted not just in semetic culture, but in the aggressive role God assumes in relation to the world. It is more "masculine."
This says nothing about God's nature ad intra, and thus nothing about males or females being "more" in the image of God than the other. It just says that, in relation to this creation, God assumes a role that is more masculine than feminine. (Note, a number of scholars have also argued that it was precisely the preponderence of feminine views of the divine in the cultures around Israel, and the wrong conceptions they engendered [e.g. birthing the world] that led the Israelites to use mostly masculine images of God. I wonder to what extent this parallels our situation today [think, for example, of the whole Gaia movement].
Do I sound surprisingly convervative to you, modes and GDG?
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:36 AM (GMT -6) | | ghost-dog-girl
06/26/01 9:44 AM
RE: God as Father/ Mother
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC: Do I sound surprisingly convervative to you, modes and GDG?
GDG: Doc, you ol’ fuddyduddy!
DOC: In most evangelical contexts, if one refers to God as "she," whatever point you may want to make will be instantaneously lost. The topic will have to now be, why do you call God "she"? Language is all about convention, and if you are going to communicate you must use the convention -- or, the only thing you will communicate is your disagreement with the convention.
GDG: Yes, I’ve noticed. But if language is “all about convention,” why is calling God “she” such a big deal? Why is it distracting to the point that it shuts down further discussion? The Bible talks about God in both masculine and feminine terms, so why do we use exclusively masculine terms, and “flip a lid” whenever someone dares to talk about God differently than the convention (but ironically, more biblically)? I was telling a friend about this discussion the other night (she is also an evangelical), and when I asked her this question, she did not hesitate—she laughed and answered, “Patriarchy!”
I think that Yankee and Wislawa’s exchange in the “infinite evil” thread was a good example. Yankee wondered why Wislawa called God “she” but that didn’t stop him from interacting with Wislawa’s ideas. While initially it is distracting to use unconventional (though more biblical) language to talk about God (I too feel uncomfortable calling God “she”), eventually most people will get used to it. Some people never will. To whatever extent these people insist on the exclusively masculine convention, to that extent their doctrine of God is patriarchal and in need of correction.
DOC: An alternative way of modifying convention is to do it covertly -- which means very subtly and slowly. In this case, one might slowly call attention more and more to God's sterotypical feminine attributes, refer to God as "mother" in context where that will not be outlandish, point out that Scripture does this, etc...
GDG: Hey, I’m all for subversion, especially when it’s biblical! As I pointed out to trosie, God the Father does not mean God the male, with stereotypical male traits. On the contrary, when God is referred to as Father in the Hebrew Bible, it often involves stereotypically female traits, such as compassion (Psalm 103:13) and giving birth (Deut. 32:18). Every little bit helps, and I appreciate what you do, Doc.
DOC: I don't know the extent to which the fact that males have historically tended to be more aggressive is due to culture or biology. But I wonder if it might be that God is referred to more in male terms rather than female terms in Scripture is rooted not just in semetic culture, but in the aggressive role God assumes in relation to the world. It is more "masculine." This says nothing about God's nature ad intra, and thus nothing about males or females being "more" in the image of God than the other. It just says that, in relation to this creation, God assumes a role that is more masculine than feminine.
GDG: Whether they are based on culture or biology, stereotypes about masculine and feminine roles change, and therefore conventions based on them are also subject to change. Obviously, God transcends our stereotypes, yet our stubborn insistence on exclusively masculine conceptions of God makes it seem like God is subject to culture and biology after all.
DOC: (Note, a number of scholars have also argued that it was precisely the preponderence of feminine views of the divine in the cultures around Israel, and the wrong conceptions they engendered [e.g. birthing the world] that led the Israelites to use mostly masculine images of God. I wonder to what extent this parallels our situation today [think, for example, of the whole Gaia movement].
GDG: I’m not familiar with the Gaia movement, but I think that feminists who insist on a female conception of deity make the same mistake as patriarchalists who insist on a male conception of deity. God is not a fertile female like Ishtar, or a horny male like Zeus. The God of the Bible is personal, and therefore we use personal pronouns to talk about God (as opposed to the gender neutral, though impersonal “it”). But the God of the Bible transcends gender, and therefore it uses both masculine and feminine terms to talk about God, just as God is imaged by both men and women.
GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:37 AM (GMT -6) | | ModesofThought
06/26/01 10:04 AM
RE: God as Father/ Mother
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you are not asking us to prefer the male biological reproductive role of penetration to the more biblical images of God as an equally agressive mother hen protecting her chicks and the like...ever meet up with a mother bear protecting her cubs? She ain't docile.
It may be true that in your experience men are more agressive than women, but not in mine. I know MANY lazy men and plenty of incredible women who will stop at nothing to meet their goals, the times they are a changin' doc...
I'm with GDG, let justified (NOTE: "Justified") new conventions confront old ones and the game will change, if it doesn't, the field is probably not worth playing on anyway. Hmmm, makes me wonder about all the old white guys at the ETS who appearently run the place.
back atcha boss.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Wislawa
06/26/01 2:23 PM
RE: God as Father/ Mother
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc, fill GDG and I in on the Gaia movement.
GDG, I’m with you that conventions are just that and we can torque them. Maybe there is a moral element in this issue which demands that we torque them. Doc’s point, I think, was that for the most part conventions are used without thinking about them. That doesn’t make them right but it is a fact about discourse. If we can’t discourse about anything other than our conventions for discourse than we have a very limited number of topics to talk about. People who have the energy to always put up a good fight can sometimes get away with using unconventional means to get at their argument while defending both. I, however, always find it wearisome. I try to only make it the issue when it is THE issue. From now on its always going to be a co-issue with whatever else I discuss. I’M JUST TRYING TO PLEASE EVERYONE (unlike that Paul cat who only cares about pleasing God)
Anyway for the purpose of this discussion board can we arrive at some sort of agreed convention (since I think everyone is pretty much in agreement about the God is not a woman or man but neither is S/he a thing either) so that we can refer newcomers with questions about the conventions to our own social contract? Or is this more hassle than co-opting this question with all other questions? Or is there an easier way?
Doc said:
3) I don't know the extent to which the fact that males have historically tended to be more aggressive is due to culture or biology. But I wonder if it might be that God is referred to more in male terms rather than female terms in Scripture is rooted not just in semetic culture, but in the aggressive role God assumes in relation to the world. It is more "masculine."
This says nothing about God's nature ad intra, and thus nothing about males or females being "more" in the image of God than the other. It just says that, in relation to this creation, God assumes a role that is more masculine than feminine. (Note, a number of scholars have also argued that it was precisely the preponderence of feminine views of the divine in the cultures around Israel, and the wrong conceptions they engendered [e.g. birthing the world] that led the Israelites to use mostly masculine images of God. I wonder to what extent this parallels our situation today [think, for example, of the whole Gaia movement].
Modes said:
I hope you are not asking us to prefer the male biological reproductive role of penetration to the more biblical images of God as an equally agressive mother hen protecting her chicks and the like...ever meet up with a mother bear protecting her cubs? She ain't docile.
It may be true that in your experience men are more agressive than women, but not in mine. I know MANY lazy men and plenty of incredible women who will stop at nothing to meet their goals, the times they are a changin' doc...
Wislawa:
I’m not sure if that’s what Doc meant. I don’t know if this is what he meant either but the way I read him I thought he was taking about how Yahweh/Israel Jesus/Church usually gets portrayed as a man/woman relationship where we get to be the girl. Corporate gender? I think C.S. Lewis said that in our relationship to God we all play the role of the woman.
So weather that’s what Doc meant or not my new question is weather this sentiment also feeds into a patriarchal convention that needs to be transformed, or is there a Biblical case for it?
Also, if we can put aside for a second the authority we give to the Bible, isn’t the Bible itself patriarchal? Are not the cultures it interacts with patriarchal? Most non-Christians have no problem dealing with the patriarchal nature of the Bible because they don’t have to deal with it as God’s word. How are we to deal with this since we do? Should we try to say that the Bible is not patriarchal? Should we try to say that Israel was not? Should we concede that it is but it’s only cultural and not universal? Ahhhh I just wish it wasn’t an issue because I don’t find it very invigorating. But it is so we should deal with it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 8:40 AM (GMT -6) | | GregBoyd
06/26/01 4:16 PM
RE: RE: God as Father/ Mother
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa read me right. It seems to me -- not to the point of conviction, but certainly to the point of wondering/inclination -- that the God-people/ male-female/ Christ-bride paradigm is not simply the by-product of cultural patriarchalism. This goes beyond the simple observation that most, but certainly not all, images of God in the Bible are masculine. (Is it simply cultural convention that the Church is not called the husband and Christ the bride?)
At the same time, it is utterly indisputible that the Bible teaches from beginning to end that males and females equally reflect the imago dei. And I wish it was indisputible (it should be indisputible) that God is aiming at gift-based equal and mutual relationships between men and women. No heirarchy. So, if my observation that the God-world:: male-female relationship is paradigmatic, not just cultural, how is it so? My suggestion is that, in terms of God's assumed role toward the world [viz. not God's eternal essence] God is initator, aggressor, persuer, courter etc... all roles that have been, almost universally, associated more (but not exclusively) with males.
At the same time, neither the world nor people are" birthed" out of God as a baby is a mother -- and this has been the main paradigm of all female goddess worship (including radical feminist revisions today). Hence perhaps another reason why the Bible emphasizes more the masculine images of God.
If this is the case, then while we can, and must, compliment male metaphors with female metaphors -- for exclusivity leads to gender idolatry [I wholly agree Modes and GDG here ] -- we should not seek to have male and female metaphors absolutely balanced in our discourse.
And all of this is on top of my earlier observation, which I still stand by, that one always has to at least largely acquiesce to linguistic convention in order to use linguistic convention to communicate anything other than matters about the linguistic convention itself.
Having said all this, I would end by saying that I wouldn't suffer, let alone die, for a word of it. This is a mostly open area for me. I am at heart far far more worried about evangelical tyrannical patriarchalist than I am evangelical feminists who want to push the envelop of linguistic convention. I'm not worried about the latter at all, as a matter of fact.
Blessings
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:28 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|