-
Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report
May 17, 2013 | 117 comments
-
Transsexual Flights from Reality
May 3, 2013 | 91 comments
-
State Funerals and Christendom
April 23, 2013 | 12 comments
-
The Hero of Star Wars
April 19, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Margaret Thatcher the Methodist
April 9, 2013 | 38 comments
Among the Intellectualoids
Neutering God
In progressive, inclusive circles, you are not to call Him by any pronoun.
It’s a wonderful mercy that much of the more extreme elements of radical feminist theology in the churches peaked in the 1990s and have since faded. The high tide of radical feminist theology was the 1993 ecumenical Re-Imagining Conference, endorsed by nearly all the Mainline Protestant denominations or their women’s agencies, where speakers condemned traditional Christianity as patriarchal and instead acclaimed ancient feminine deities like Astarte, Isis, and Athena. God was also commonly called “Sophia,” based on the Greek word for wisdom. There was a special altar call for lesbians, not for repentance, but for acclamation. A milk and honey ritual replaced the traditional Eucharist.
Of course, Re-Imagining was enormously controversial, even earning an episode on Ted Koppel’s Nightline. Although there were subsequent Re-Imagining reunions, few of the Mainline groups again endorsed, and the Re-Imagining Community eventually dissolved. Radical feminist theology, which deemed the traditional Jewish-Christian deity as unacceptably patriarchal, has mostly retreated into the tenured faculty of the most liberal Protestant seminaries. Its constituency never fully expanded beyond mostly older, white, upper income church women in declining denominations or from small, dissident Catholic groups. Predictably, no orthodox church group has been able to thrive while minimizing historic core doctrines, like the Trinity or Atonement, which radical feminist theology dismissed as the imagined fancies of ancient chauvinistic men in robes. Like most liberal theology, radical feminist theology assumes that God does not self-disclose as objective reality but rather is a human-projection, and therefore can be routinely reinvented to suit desires and fashion.
But strains of feminist theology persist, though often more subtle. It is not uncommon in some Protestant circles for sometimes otherwise orthodox preachers to persistently avoid all personal pronouns for the deity. Since “he” and “him” are deemed potentially offensive, “God” instead is cited repeatedly like rapid, repetitious fire from a Gatling gun. This semantic ploy, if it must be used, might be somewhat less grating if some traditional alternative names were also used, like the “Almighty,” or simply “Lord.” Some preachers say “God-God-God” without personal pronouns based on conviction, or imagined potential offense for a feminist in the congregation, or because a seminary demanded this practice. Some Mainline Protestant seminaries require “inclusive” language for all references to the deity. Ardent liberals will even avoid traditional Trinitarian language, substituting “Creator-Redeemer-Sustainer” for “Father-Son-Holy Ghost.”
Christians and Jews worship a Spirit who is not a man or woman, though Christians of course believe that God did become man in Jesus Christ. Jewish and Christian Scriptures always refer to God in masculine terms, while sometimes metaphorically likening God’s love to a hen protecting her chicks or a woman searching for a lost coin. God in neither Old or New Testament is ever referred to as “she” or “her.” Some theologians speculate that, among other reasons, the transcendent God of the Jews was entirely distinct from the very gendered and sexualized pagan deities, some of which literally gave birth to creation. The Jewish God created by fiat, not birthing. Jesus called God “Father,” and there is no scriptural reference of a Heavenly Mother. An unauthorized United Methodist hymnal supplement of 10 years ago included hymns titled: “I Am Your Mother,” “Mothering God You Gave Me Birth,” and “Womb of Life,” benignly intertwined with more traditional anthems like “Eternal Father, Strong to Save,” the Navy’s traditional hymn. There’s no evidence that any of these “Mother” hymns has gained a wide following.
The rising new Evangelical Left is anxious to repeat many of the same mistakes that took Mainline Protestantism from the center of America’s religious to the sideline. So it was inevitable that some Evangelical Left voices would encourage feminist friendly gender-neutral God language. A recent commentary in Jim Wallis’ Sojourners comes from a woman Presbyterian minister, who apparently learned “inclusive language” at McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago. “Using inclusive language makes room for the diversity of God’s people to feel equally valued, included, acknowledged, and invited to participate in God’s community,” she explains, as she struggled to overcome her conservative Southern Baptist background. She recalled attending a feminist theological conference where “Godde” was offered as a compromise between God and “Goddess.” Apparently this was advocated by older women, while the younger women were somewhat discomfited. Currently based at a “diverse” San Francisco church, this minister now feels a “connection with God as Mother, Bosom, and Nurturer.”
We can wish her well. But a deity who lacks personal pronouns, or who is gender fluid, is ultimately depersonalized and distant, defeating the purpose of Judaism and Christianity to relate fallen humanity to a very personal, redemptive deity whom Jesus asked be called “Father.” While the gender-neutral or feminine versions of God touted by remnant feminist theologians are supposed to be “inclusive,” in fact their appeal is mostly limited to small, liberal urban audiences. Growing Christianity, Protestant or Catholic, in America, or around the world, is not commonly singing “I Am Your Mother,” or looking to “Godde.”
My late predecessor Diane Knippers, a sharp critic of feminist theology, once encountered famed “Feminist Mystique” author Betty Friedan, who told her she had once asked her own rabbi why she, though obviously a liberal, was so uncomfortable with the idea of goddess. “Because you are a Jew,” he succinctly replied. Christians and Jews believe they worship a deity who reveals His own identity, not one who is randomly invented by His adherents. Such a deity seems to inspire more widespread and lasting devotion than His “inclusive” alternatives.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (142) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From Among the Intellectualoids
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/14/neutering-god
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Gerald Brennan| 1.14.11 @ 6:22AM
God has no sex. Obviously.
If you think of God as a "he", you lose half the universe.
For the Spectator, this is one amazing waste of ink.
Ryan| 1.14.11 @ 8:33AM
Here's the problem.
In every instance of scripture, God either refers to Himself or is referred to in the masculine form. In practically every parable or illustration (particularly any reference to a marriage - where He is ALWAYS the Groom), He is a male character.
There IS a sort of transcendance of gender with Him. However, it is how He refers to Himself, and there is no scriptural basis to do so otherwise.
If there is, you have to point it out. Otherwise, you are at contradiction with scripture.
Joe Cicalese| 1.16.11 @ 10:04AM
Someone let me know when this makes sense
Ryan| 1.17.11 @ 8:15AM
What's confusing? I'll be happy to clarify.
Patrick| 1.14.11 @ 11:49AM
It is lazy thinking like this that allows for liberalism.
God, though spirit, and obviously existing prior to the existence of sexual dimorphism, created this universe as He sees fit. Now, just for the record, how this played out is beyond the scope of this thread, so please save any partiality for another day.
So long as you believe that God is responsible for existence since the beginning, and has acted in the interests of mankind (proper English grammar) even now, then it is the prudence of God that there be two sexes in the human species.
There are a great many different method of procreation that the Father has devised for other species, and it would have been little effort for Him to create us differently. Were God inclined to do so, we could have been a race of parthenogenic women or perhaps hermaphrodites. Since this is not the case, then it stands that hermaphrodizing or neutering our society or our Lord is nonsensical.
Every feminist-left argument dies at this point, since they demand a weak God who, though creating and sustaining every particle in the universe, cannot handle such a small thing as biology or societal taboos.
Alan Brooks| 1.14.11 @ 12:31PM
However, perhaps God IS a woman.
Alan Brooks| 1.14.11 @ 12:33PM
...God might even be a black lesbian from North Carolina.
MikeBee| 1.14.11 @ 4:28PM
Alan,
All "Spectator teasing" aside, you are more correct than you think. Jesus Christ was most definitely both God and a man. But it was He who said that whatever you do to the least of these, that you do to me. Get your brain around that.
UFO UFOS| 3.2.12 @ 4:34AM
God UFO
Tim the Enchanter| 1.14.11 @ 1:14PM
I remember at one of my past places of employment that a temporary worker (and snooty feminist) proposed that same "maybe God is a woman". One of my co-workers replied with probably the best retort I'd ever heard: "You think God would do that to Himself every month?"
Alan Brooks| 1.14.11 @ 1:37PM
But women don't lie or cheat as much as men.
Darragh| 1.14.11 @ 2:42PM
Women are no better and no worse than men. But believe me, as someone who has worked for plenty of women--I'd rather work for men.
Alan Brooks| 1.14.11 @ 5:31PM
If men didn't control women so much, women would be a great deal better than men.
Big Leo| 1.15.11 @ 5:23PM
Darragh, you have hit the nail on the head, and my wife fervently agrees with you. The attitude that Alan echoes is one of the reasons why this is true.
Alan Brooks| 1.15.11 @ 9:54PM
"Darragh, you have hit the nail on the head, and my wife fervently agrees with you."
Maybe your wife is just a puppet.
Howdy| 1.16.11 @ 10:47AM
Talk about puppets, Brooks likes having a man's hand up his keister, among other anatomical parts.
Joe Cicalese| 1.16.11 @ 10:07AM
Oh really?
Who took the first bite and offered to HER partner?
Think about it braniac- if a man is cheating with a woman, then that woman is cheating with that man
Patrick| 1.16.11 @ 2:11PM
Joe,
Alan is....well...out there in lala land. Most of us have given up on trying to establish a coherent dialogue, let alone debate.
W| 1.14.11 @ 1:03PM
Why do you lose half of the universe?
Travis| 1.14.11 @ 2:03PM
Jesus said: "God is Spirit and those who worship 'Him' must worship in spirit and truth." John 4:24 NASB
The main proponent of recognizing God in masculine terms, in my opinion, is probably due to the fact that God created man first, then the woman, and it is the man who is relegated as head of the household according to scripture and therefore the man is recognized, or should be recognized, as the authority figure within the family unit and in the home. I Cor. 11:3 In much the same way, the children of God i.e. those who have accepted Christ as Savior and Lord and are now brought into the "family of God" by God's grace through faith, are predisposed then to refer to God in masculine term as Heavenly "Father" for God is 'head' over all and is the ultimate 'authority' obviously.
As noted, Jesus himself also references the first person of the Trinity who is in heaven - as "Him" and Father. The Trinity consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) naturally. Christ gave his followers a template when praying also, saying: "Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed (highly venerated, Holy) is Your name." etc. Matt. 6:9-13.
In conclusion, if the Son of God is telling His disciples (His followers) to refer to God as masculine i.e. as "Him" and as "Father" who am I to question Christ's reasoning for doing so?
"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!" Rom 11:33
Gretchen| 1.14.11 @ 7:22PM
If memory serves me correctly, Christian Scientists refer to a "Father-Mother God".
Patrick| 1.15.11 @ 4:18AM
C.S. is New Age before New Age was cool...err...well, before they learned about tofu.
PsychoDad| 1.15.11 @ 2:52PM
Gerald Brennan is a waste of ink, air, and natural resources.
David| 1.16.11 @ 8:47AM
Actually, based on the replies here, it is PsychoDad who is the waste of ink, air, and natural resources, not Gerald Brennan. (But then who expects sense from someone who names himself "PsychoDad"? Really.)
If the female isn't an expression of God as much as the male, than how does she exist in the first place?
And doesn't the very first chapter of the Bible say:
"So God created man in hisown image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (RSV; Genesis 1:27)
"Male and female" corresponds to "the image of God."
Think a bit before you post next time.
Michael| 1.14.11 @ 6:36AM
..Jesus taught us to call God "Our Father....."
Appleby| 1.14.11 @ 7:02AM
God our Father, Christ our Brother.
Our priest uses the stutter-step GodGodGod nonsense, but the congregation, which in our service is largely Eastern European, says he and him and his. Under the steady hand at the wheel of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the conservative convents and monastaries are bulging at the seams, and the post Vatican II hippie sinkholes are fading away.
Unfortunately in our congregation we do not have much trouble with hymns, as our congregation flatly refuses to sing anything at all.
SCM| 1.14.11 @ 1:19PM
I sympathize with your comment about your congregation failing to sing. My evangelical church has grown from 200 in the mid-80s to about 4,000 now. Much of that growth has come from disaffected Catholics looking for some "meat" in the preaching. But as they have filled the seats, the participation and enthusiasm for the singing seems to have slowly declined. (I'll admit that perhaps some of this is due to the abandonment of the substantively theological old hymns which have been replaced by electrified praise choruses, but that is a matter for another discussion.)
As a child growing up in the Catholic Church, I found it bewildering that so few people wanted to sing. But then I also found it odd that so many walked out of the service after receiving communion, and not waiting till the Mass was over. Do they still do that?
Stephanie| 1.14.11 @ 2:46PM
After 30 odd years. I have returned to the Presbyterian church. The hymn book is watered down with only a few old traditional songs remaining. It is indeed discouraging as is the watering down and progressive-izing of the church in general. But the new fangled electric churches that SCM referred to with their praise bands and choruses make me nauseous. The preacher with his electric headset on, the jumbotrons with the words to the electric music or the preacher's face, (no hymn books) the drum set in the corner. It just makes me feel slimy when I go to such a "church". And the Episcopal that I tried for a while felt devoid of anything spiritual, so I will stick it out where I am for the time being. I think we still refere to God as he.
Frisbee| 1.14.11 @ 7:35PM
SCM wrote: "so many walked out of the service after receiving communion, and not waiting till the Mass was over. Do they still do that?"
Judas did that*. Some people still do that. People will probably do that until the end of time. SCM, may I invite you back to the Catholic Church? Then you (and I) can specifically NOT do that.
*Scott Hahn refers to leaving the Mass early as "the Judas shuffle".
Patrick| 1.15.11 @ 4:33AM
Much of this is a holdover from earlier generations. Prior to the Ordinary Form (also known as Novus Ordo by hard-core traditionalists), the only ones singing were either the celebrant or the choir. Everyone was to keep reverent silence. Well, if we want to split hairs, if memory serves me that is, in the 1950's it was allowable for the Faithful to sing the part of the choir, but few did so. This carries on, and it frustrates the music people to no end.
You really are onto something about the hymns. Most of the hymns sang at Mass sound more like a bad Broadway musical, or perhaps a painfully obvious attempt at patronizing Hispanics.
As for people doing the "Judas Shuffle", if I remember correctly, St. Francis de Sales used to have altar boys escort those people with candles, symbolizing that since they had partaken of Communion, they bore they Body of Christ within them.
Appleby| 1.16.11 @ 9:31AM
Many of the choir members in various churches I have attended make fun of the congregation for wanting to sing hymns that they know. But I have found that those churches, and the ones that still have afternoon hymn sings, are the ones where the congregations are growing.
Yesterday the Bishop met with the choirs (although only our choir showed up) and toward the end of the meeting the tired old HowDoWeGetTheKids (ie those 18-24 years old). My suggestion which I did not make would be condense the Mass to 6 minutes and make it an App.
It also made me chuckle out loud, and I did point this out, that the arguments for the coming standardization of the Mass are precisely the same ones that we old farts were making against dropping Latin and changing to the Daddio/Junior/Spooky vernacular -- that is, making the Mass commonplace and conversational would drive away the devout and not attract TheKids. Funny to see that 40 years later they are tacitly admitting we were right!
PS: many of those who flee right after the Eucharist are trying to beat the crowd out of the parking lot.
Patrick| 1.16.11 @ 2:15PM
"After all, I can't miss the pre-game show! I have thirty dollars riding on this one!" - Captain Irony
Roy| 1.17.11 @ 12:26PM
18-24 year olds are away at college. A lot of them fall away. Not all, though, and the ones that don't form relationships that will support them throughout life.
If it was up to me, I would shorten the mass to the bare minimum length of time and deliberately make it more mystical and ceremonial. Would not actually change any rites(there's really no need) but would eliminate all attempts to make it anything but a sacrifice. Then I'd have an hour beforehand over in the school gym or whatever, that was a big, sloppy, evangelical-prayer-group-style meeting with singing and socializing and food, etc. At the end of it everyone would process silently to the church. You could come for the first part or not, entirely based on how much time you had available and personal preference.
I say this because the current mass seems to me to be a half-baked compromise between the two, pleasing nobody. Again, this has nothing to do with the actual missal, it's a matter of style.
Bill Sundling| 1.14.11 @ 7:25AM
God does NOT compare himself to a woman looking for a lost coin. Jesus used that example in one his parables.
(Luke 15:3-10 NIV) Then Jesus told them this parable: {4} "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? {5} And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders {6} and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.' {7} I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent. {8} "Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? {9} And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.' {10} In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."
PaulD| 1.14.11 @ 7:35AM
Jesus Christ was male. Jesus Christ is God. Case closed.
66fredo99| 1.14.11 @ 1:25PM
Touche
Seek| 1.17.11 @ 6:46PM
Jesus could not have been the Son of God and God himself at the same time. He either was one or the other. Case closed.
Beth in Texas| 1.17.11 @ 8:33PM
Thus the mystery of the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Essential tenet of the Christian faith. Either you believe it or you don't. I believe it, and I also believe that my humanity prevents me from grasping it in its entirety. It's a faith thing.
Kelly Staples| 1.14.11 @ 7:53AM
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
oldfart| 1.14.11 @ 8:26AM
Right on the money.
Ryan| 1.14.11 @ 8:35AM
This isn't that trivial. It, in a sense, is part of the core to how we view scripture. Do we take it at its word, or do we insert what we feel modern culture and practices tell us to do?
Vern Crisler| 1.14.11 @ 8:54AM
Since angels are incorporeal, an infinite number can dance on the head of a pin.
Frisbee| 1.14.11 @ 7:37PM
The answer is not infinite. The answer is all of them.
Vern Crisler| 1.14.11 @ 8:58PM
"Infinite" would be correct if we're talking about all possible angels.
bob alou| 1.17.11 @ 11:36AM
No, there were/are only a specific number of angels that were created. There are not infinite numbers of angels anymore than there are infinite numbers of human beings. All were created by God, and all have been created. In the case of humans, unlike angels, all have not yet been born but one day all will have been.
Appleby| 1.14.11 @ 9:32AM
The answer to that in Bible College in the 1960s was always "Why would they want to?"
cnc| 1.14.11 @ 11:10AM
27
oldfart| 1.14.11 @ 8:29AM
I can hardly wait for the reaction of feminist theology groups in Europe to the implementation of Sharia Law.
David W| 1.14.11 @ 9:31AM
They will support it with open arms. It is anti-Christian and anti-patriarchy. Oh wait, it is mucho much patriarchy... but they are so blind to it because it is anti-Christian that they have to support it.
Stephanie| 1.14.11 @ 2:47PM
They may think twice when they have to cover their faces.
Sea_Hunter| 1.14.11 @ 8:46AM
All of this boils down to what, not who, is God. God replied to that question. When Moses asked the burning bush, God replied "I am that I am." No sexual distinction exists in that statement.
Back to Eden. In the Bible/Torah/Koran there is the statement that God made man in his own image. All to offten we assume that image is a mirror reflection of God. We see him as a strong old man with a beard reaching out a fingertip to Adam. That, I submit, is not the true image of God.
Picture a monkey. We can teach a monkey a great many things, to sign with his hands, to press buttons on a screen. What we can not do, is get that monkey to think in purely abstract terms. We can trace the migration of ancient monkeys from the plains of Africa to what is now the "holy land". No where along that trek do we see a monkey bury its' dead. It is not until the "holy land" that we find the first clues of burial. To bury the dead is to aknowledge the existance of an afterlife (a very abstract thought) and an afterlife suggests indirectly the existance of a God (a greater abstract thought)
So lets put all of this together. A monkey reaches the Holy Land and suddendly has a thought impossible for a monkey to think. That monkey thinks of God, that there is something greater than he himself, who is the creator of the world. No monkey can think such a thought, it is far too abstract. That thought, that idea, is the image of God. He is that he is. It was at that moment humanity began.
To be human demands a belief in God. Not a masculine God, or a feminine God, just God. We need to get over this silly, and ultimately distructive, idea that God is "too Masculine" and return to a simple concept, God is. Just that simple, just that direct. To focus on the gender of God is to take away from the meaning of God, and by that, to take away some of our humanity.
SH
Ryan| 1.14.11 @ 8:47AM
Then why is God consistently referred to in the masculine throughout the rest of Scripture?
David T| 1.14.11 @ 10:51AM
Exactly. We think of God in the masculine because that is how He is revealed to us in Scripture. It was not the idea of some enlightened monkey, pace Sea Hunter. God is active and powerful and creative--all male traits. True, He nurtures us like a mother her young, but He is not submissive (i.e. "female") in any form or fashion.
JP| 1.14.11 @ 9:46AM
God chose to reveal himself as a Man. He sent us a Son. This Son Christ is our redeemer. There is no gender neutrality with God. If he chose not to follow His Son, that is your business. But please, enough with your fallacies. There is a reason why Christ was sent as a Man and he refers to the First Person of the Trinity as The Father.
Sea_Hunter| 1.14.11 @ 5:16PM
Let me reply briefly to my critics.
Let us assume that God is boundless and that man is not. To reduce the image of God to a picture by Blake or Michaelangelo is to reduce God to our level, not raise us to his. That to me is a form of paganism. In this sense I refer to paganism as the personifacation of a God. All the Greek, Roman, Norse Gods were big mortals with huge egos. A Frenchman on steroids if you will. Our Judo-Christian God is much different.
The texts of the Bible/Torah/Koran all refer to God in the masculine tense. Understandably so I believe. It is very difficult to write a narative without a pronound or two. The pronound used in all these texts is masculine. I submit that is a choice of authorship, not a defination of gender.
That Jesus was male is not an indicator of the gender of God. At that time the Holy Land was governed by what we would not call Shria Law. They still stoned women. Women had little value in society. Had God come as a mortal woman no one would have listened, no one would have followed, and she would have been stoned to death early on for standing up to the Jewish Priests. Being male allowed others to follow in a masculine dominated world long after he died.
The obvious rebutal to this argument is that God could overcome such obsticles simply because he was God. That denies the basic tenet of Christianity, that God first and formost demands of us all free will. He will not, has not, would not demand our belief in him.
So, yes, the pronounds are masculine. So yes he is described to us with masculine virtues. So yes his Son was (in Catholic and Anglian understandings) He himself. To limit God to our form, to make us his mirror image, does not uplift us to the level of God. We are uplifted by the understanding of what God is. He is that he is, creator, protector, that which inspires us to be so much more than we are ourselves. That is a goal difficult to achieve if God is nothing more than a Giant with a beard. SH
Ryan| 1.17.11 @ 8:20AM
God demands of us free will? What scripture is THAT? Where would we get it from?
I would think that God more demands of us perfect obedience.
Adam ate of the fruit of the tree - the one command Adam was given, He disobeyed.
Ryan| 1.17.11 @ 8:21AM
I would also argue against Him not "demanding our belief." That is why we are condemned - because He demands our belief, and we don't give it to Him outside of the work of the Cross.
PsychoDad| 1.15.11 @ 2:56PM
Occam's Razor, anyone? I couldn't even finish wading through that denialist rubbish about monkeys in Jerusalem.
Denver Todd| 1.14.11 @ 8:58AM
It is interesting that while the feminists are hung up on this tiny little corner of language, God's main goal was to redeem mankind from sin. You'll rarely hear of this in feminist circles, the existence of sin, and how God solved the problem through Jesus Christ.
Appleby| 1.14.11 @ 9:34AM
You don't hear ANYBODY talk about sin these days, except to deny that there is such a thing.
Stephanie| 1.14.11 @ 2:52PM
Again, the New Age philosophy. No good, no evil. No right no wrong. It releases us from any responsibility and accounting for our sins. I have friends who live with these ideas. The shooter in Arizona is not evil . He just is. ???????????
Seek| 1.17.11 @ 6:49PM
Actually, the shooter was evil. But his religious beliefs, such as they could be divined, were irrelevant. History has recorded many Christians who killed wantonly, and not just with a burning stake.
Mike| 1.14.11 @ 9:10AM
I challenge you to find anyone who uses inclusive language for God who also believes that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. You can't do it. Inclusive terminology goes hand in hand with the denial of scriptural truth.
KyMouse| 1.14.11 @ 9:47AM
Mike, here's something else: People I've met who refuse to use male pronouns for God seem to make it a sticking point about their faith (and perhaps a way to excuse remaining disobedient to Him) -- "I won't believe in a God who is a He." Therefore, they won't worship Him and they won't ask Him to forgive their sins. God must meet *their* standards and fit *their* worldview.
So much for "Nothing to Thy throne I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling" and "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!"
Lezlie| 1.14.11 @ 1:08PM
Therefore if they can deny scriptural truth, they don't have to adhere to it. There are going to be some very surprized people who stand before God and explain that one. If you deny God for who HE says He is, then what?
Joe Oliva| 1.14.11 @ 2:56PM
Christ did say that in that day there will be many coming to Him claiming that they helped the poor, fed the hungry, clothed the naked, etc. His response will be - Depart from me you workers of iniquity.
Jesus is the Way the Light, and the Truth, and no one comes to the Father in any other way. Those who choose to reinvent scripture to satisfy their own interpretations/beliefs should be careful.
He set the example and taught us to follow Him and His example. Therefore, as Paul said, work out your own salvation in fear and trembling, but know that God is merciful.
Frisbee| 1.14.11 @ 7:51PM
Joe Oliva, I think you are mixing up Matthew 7 and Matthew 25.
In Matthew 7:22 Jesus says "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' "
So prophesy and miracle working are no guarantees of salvation.
But Matthew 25 has this: 31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
JP| 1.14.11 @ 9:37AM
God chose to reveal Himself as a Man. The second person of the Trinity is God the Son. Christ is fully human and fully divine; in other words, He is both Man and God. However, He did come to the world through a woman. He received his humanity from a woman. God also chose to submit himself to a human family (aka the Holy Family). To neuter God is to dishonor Him, as Christ (fully human and fully devine) is God. To call Christ an "it" is bodering on blasphamy. Christ is humanity perfected. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
The Evangelical Left is playing with fire, here. To reduce Christ to some gender neutral personage, detracts who He really is. He is both Devine and Human. One thinks of ancient hereseies when one reads what these dissident Catholics and Evangelicals are doing.
KyMouse| 1.14.11 @ 9:37AM
Jesus consistently used male pronouns to refer to His Father (God). Since Jesus also is God -- the second Person in the Trinity -- He had His reasons for doing so. That's sufficient for me.
Walkthetalk| 1.14.11 @ 9:58AM
Actually, God, a spirit, refers to himself as a father because that is how he wants us to see him. The Bible is all about God. It teaches us how to relate to him, as sons. Yes, sons. Jesus said, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Look through the Bible and you will see how sons are treated, as opposed to daughters. God will treat us all as sons, and we are to treat him as our father, not our mother. You see, the theme of the Bible is life, and the object of the Bible is to get everyone into Christ, spiritually where they will have that life. There is no life apart from Jesus Christ. God has given everyone free will to choose to obey or not, to turn to the appointed Savior (do righteousness), or to turn away (to sin). In fact through Moses God pleads, “This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life….”
The changing the nomenclature from male to female destroys the figure of the relationship God wants us to understand and grasp. Of course this is the goal of the re-imagining God campaign. Back in the late 1980’s there was a re-imagining conference for women. They came out declaring that females needed representation in God too, so they declared Sophia (Greek goddess of wisdom) should be included in the godhead, and to support the continual feminist campaign to change the gender of God. There are two kinds of people in this world, those who love God as he is, and those who hate God as he is. The latter group is defined by the Bible as walking on the broad path to death. They display the characteristics of hatred of God and of what God has ordained (heterosexual family, children, etc.), death oriented behavior (abortion mongering), self-centered behavior, finger-pointing (blaming others for everything, including global warming), and display an inversion of what is right. To them bad is good and good is bad. What’s more they can’t help themselves. Since they chose to turn their backs on God they are ruled by the “fallen nature.” If you want to see what sin produces in people look at a leftist feminist, or listen to the liberals, watch what they do. They are liars, tax cheats, narcissistic, hate mongers. The greatest hatred is reserved for Christians because Christians (not leftist “Christians”) shine the light of truth in their spiritual darkness. They hate that. We call them to turn away from the dark dead end path, to turn to the light the Father has provided, the son Jesus, REPENT. There is life only in the Son.
For more information thoroughly read the books on www.christforamericans Don’t just skim them. The attacks by the left will increase. Those on the right must be ready to do battle on the spiritual level, because sin is the root cause of the actions and attitudes of those on the left.
Walkthetalk| 1.14.11 @ 10:06AM
Thats www.christforamericans.com
Find out what your church as not told you about life in Christ.
Richard| 1.14.11 @ 11:37AM
There is much wisdom here. I especially like the comment that God refers to himself as father because he wants us to see him as our father.
A.M. Mallett| 1.14.11 @ 9:58AM
This is distilled into a great simplicity: Sheep and goats, wheat and tares.
ncatty| 1.14.11 @ 10:12AM
Women are Sons of God and men are Brides of Christ. It is a mystery.
Petronius| 1.14.11 @ 10:23AM
God has nothing to do with it. It's about power. And the Almighty must be feminized along with the rest of the universe so the bitches will get their way.
They will never be happy though. They know others cannot be forced to like it.
Patrick| 1.15.11 @ 9:05PM
Actually, they will never be happy because envy (hatred of someone else's blessings, ie: sin of Cain) is never satisfied. Envy is the heart and soul of liberalism, and all its works are but a taste of the foulness within.
In the end, envy never satisfies, it only drives its servants into the dust, cracking the whip with the sting of hurt pride ever on and on.
No, they never will be happy or know rest.
Steve A| 1.14.11 @ 10:33AM
If I ever do rate enough to meet God I will be incredibly dissapointed if I encounter a metrosexual Rachel Maddow impersonator. I'm just sayin....
RCV| 1.14.11 @ 6:55PM
.....just don't show that disappointment, Steve!
agathis| 1.14.11 @ 10:46AM
No one is saying that God the Father is a man, which makes this whole thing so damned strange. We say God the Father because that is what Christ asked us to say. This isn't rocket science, you know. This obsession with metaphor and meaning is the real problem here for feminists who object to the masculine language. The metaphor is what it is. It is important, but the true reality is God as God. An unwillingness to obey Christ, though, is a far more clear and telling reality.
ds80| 1.14.11 @ 1:02PM
agathis, you nailed it:
"An unwillingness to obey Christ, though, is a far more clear and telling reality."
Claypoole| 1.15.11 @ 12:14PM
Regarding feminists who object to the masculine language: the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, the version we use in our Presbyterian church, translates the Greek word for "brothers" as "brothers and sisters." In other words, the translation just makes up a word that did not exist in the original, presumably to spare the feelings of women. I grew up on the King James Bible with all of its masculine language, and never once did I feel as if I mattered any less to God and Christ because I was a girl.
Suzanne| 1.14.11 @ 11:08AM
I am a female minister. I use masculine pronouns for God; not because I believe God is male, but because this is how God has revealed Himself to us. The personal nature of God reinforced by personal pronouns is far more important than our error, our misconception of God as human-plus (usually).
I believe that God exists outside of creation and that male and female are attributes within creation. I believe that when scriptures says "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." somehow it takes the best of what we consider male and female attributes to mirror God, and this is why marriage, which draws such different creatures as male and female together, makes us stronger than either apart.
Now, men who say that men are God's image and women are not, are just as wrong as the feminists. But that doesn't always get addressed. Women become sons of God, and men are part of the bride of Christ. sometimes our minds just aren't big enough to get it.
Ryan| 1.14.11 @ 11:14AM
If there is anyone who states that women aren't in God's image, I haven't seen it, and I run in some fairly conservative circles.
Steve A| 1.14.11 @ 11:46AM
Suzanne, Excellent post. Makes sense to me. As far as the "created in His image" reference, I had always interpreted this to mean in relation to spirit ( anger, joy, humor, sorrow, etc) obviously not a gender sense.
Anyway, my prediction is this: Once you get "there," the afterlife will be so mind bendingly incomprehensible (in a good way) that it is simply impossible for our mind to approach its reality.
Joe Oliva| 1.14.11 @ 3:03PM
Exactly Steve,
"Eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the mind of man what God has prepared for those who love Him". Yes, it will be mindbending to say the least.
The other relevant scripture is "A new Heaven and a new Earth wherein dwells righteousness." Try imaging what that is going to be like.
MikeBee| 1.14.11 @ 12:38PM
Suzanne,
Thank you for your comments. I was trained in theological studies in the Roman Catholic Church (M.A. Theology). I agree with what you are saying. The issue really is about how God wishes to reveal Himself.
But there is a secondary, related issue, which I find to be extremely important. Today, in our increasingly feminized society, the presence of fathers and of true male images in our lives is sorely lacking. Just as in the family unit, the lack of a father leads to a lack of discipline, the lack of fatherly and male images in society in general leads to the disordering of society. The image of "Men who can't be strong or decisive" agrees with a general societal vision that all truth is relative anyway, which is simply wrong. It can be argued that today's society is in sore need of true male images to turn toward, like a God Who is Father (perhaps God knew this, when He chose to reveal Himself as Father?). Especially in today's divorce-ridden society, too many children have grown up devoid of any paternal influence, and badly need a "daddy."
My wife, who possesses a very strong female self-image, laughs at the songs in church which must avoid masculine pronouns for God. She simply says, "I don't need that," and sings the hymns using the male pronouns, like folks used to.
DaveS| 1.15.11 @ 4:49PM
Your wife made a, perhaps, unwitting point when she said she used the masculine pronouns when that part of the hymns verses came up for 'revisionist' treatment: WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM, PEOPLE???(!!!) Anyone who lets the masculine attribute of God wreck their lives or their precious pride and dignity has neither.
Sea_Hunter| 1.14.11 @ 5:29PM
Suzanne:
Thank both you and Mike for injecting sanity into this blog. All too often the American Spectator blog degenerates into a mass of idiotic name calling. Both you and Mike allow reason to overcome insanity. Thank you both. SH
Big Leo| 1.15.11 @ 5:27PM
Excellent response, Suzanne. Thanks.
Yikes!| 1.16.11 @ 2:15AM
Concerning the post of the female minister Susanne. First she exposes her credential to give her post authority. Not necessary, it should stand on its own. The statement I believe, means its her religious opinion. Her opinion says the best attributes of men and women will mirror God. I say, yikes! The best of man and woman got man and woman thrown out of the Garden of Eden. That's why men and women have to repent. Biblically speaking, man and woman in marriage are a pattern for Christ and the church. Susanne focused on the physical unity of man and woman, not the spiritual, a liberal theological characteristic. Further, humans are not "attributes" of creation. That statement equates humans to being nothing more than a collection of atoms. Again, liberal theology. I've also never heard anyone make the "misconception of God as human-plus (usually)." The Bible has not been obscure on this. Certainly she was not talking of Jesus (I and the Father are one.). I've also never heard any man say, "that men are God's image and women are not" unless they were teasing their wives. For her last line, Susanne simply parrots ncatty (see above). Despite all her supporters her statements are not Biblical, nor are they conservative Christian. So I hope no one was fooled.
Rich Fisher| 1.14.11 @ 11:23AM
Gee, I kind of miss Margie in this debate. Any chance she will be forgiven and be allowed back or is her exile permanent? Maybe we should show some Christian love and give her another chance.
David T| 1.14.11 @ 11:32AM
What concord hath Christ with Belial?
Just kidding :)
Steve A| 1.14.11 @ 11:47AM
What did Marge do to get double secret probation??
Ryan| 1.14.11 @ 12:21PM
Got overly stubborn when everyone - including many people who often sided with her - called her out in a debate with me over uses of scripture.
I don't mind her coming back - there are far worse characters around here.
LiveFreeOrDie| 1.14.11 @ 3:26PM
First I heard of this. Do you have the link to the blog or article??? Even if she was very angry I can't imagine what she could have said to get "banned." I'd really like to see it.
Ryan| 1.17.11 @ 8:25AM
Head over to the blog post that Quin made last week about Obama quoting scripture.
Frisbee| 1.14.11 @ 7:10PM
Margie was not banned. See the Administrator's comments near the bottom of:
http://spectator.org/blog/2011.....-scripture
Natural Born Texican| 1.14.11 @ 11:28AM
God is. Jesus is. They just are. God relates to the humans He created in a way that humans can understand when he calles himself Father.
We do not become angels when we die. Angels are specially created spiritual beings who serve God.
We are created to have a relationship with God. He loves us and wants us to love Him.
Male? Female? Our narrow understanding is contained and restrained by our human thinking.
Stephanie| 1.14.11 @ 2:59PM
The Great I am.
Al Adab| 1.14.11 @ 12:51PM
Read your Koran (Quran) people. Allah (blessed is He) is male.
ds80| 1.14.11 @ 1:04PM
No, thank you. I will read the Bible of the Christian God. It has an earlier publication date.
Claypoole| 1.15.11 @ 12:23PM
Yes, ds80, and a far more reliable Source.
66fredo99| 1.14.11 @ 2:07PM
Surely you are aware that as People of the Book, the Koran isn't ours - neither are we bound to read it. In any case, the discussion is over the God of the Bible, not Allah.
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 1.14.11 @ 1:10PM
I can't understand why it's so difficult for some to just take GOD at His word & just believe. We will all find out in the end anyway. GOD just is as someone else here has already said & I, too believe GOD exists outside of our universe. GOD is not constrained by time as humans are & because of this we can never pinpoint the time of Christ's return, since only GOD, The Father knows the appointed hour (someone please explain this to Harold Camping of Family Radio). I look forward to the day when I am in His presence, not just to see Him in person, but to thank Him for everything He's done for me & that list is very, very long. GOD bless all!
GregoryDA| 1.14.11 @ 1:53PM
Man will not take God at His word because he has been in rebellion against Him since The Fall. Man ignores the totality of the Word and refuses to submit to the Lord as He rightfully demands. Those of the world submit only to their own lusts and desires; they desire a god of their own creation who submits to them.
Thank you, Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, for your grace and mercy!
SCM| 1.14.11 @ 1:23PM
Jesus called Him "Father" and "Abba" (daddy). That's good enough for me!
Christopher Landrum| 1.14.11 @ 2:43PM
The Church is a bride and comprised of women. Leadership role aside, is there any American church, congregation, denomination that lacks an abundance of female membership?
DaveS| 1.15.11 @ 4:37PM
Unfortunately, no.
Eduardo| 1.14.11 @ 4:31PM
God is not a "man" or a "woman"; God is a perfect being of pure spirit, totally sublime and not in need of a gender. Gender and genitals are for biological creatures. The Son is part of the Trinity as is the Holy Spirit. The Son became a biological human being, which necessitated having a gender. So we have the man Jesus Christ,who is also true God. In fact, He gave himself the enigmatic title " Son of Man". Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, which is where He gets his divinity; the Virgin Mary through her womb provided the humanity, the flesh and the blood. Women are essential to Christianity since a woman was the cause of humanity's Fall through Eve, while Mary, the hyper-saint, facilitated the birth of the Redeemer. Full circle. What am I missing?
gerald brennan| 1.14.11 @ 5:31PM
You're missing nothing.
But most of your readers will still insist that the one God of this and every universe is male, and should be called He.
What can you do?
Frisbee| 1.14.11 @ 7:18PM
God should be called He. Jesus is a male. Christians must respect that, and also that He has revealed himself as Father and Son (and Holy Spirit).
Femininity is inherently receptive. God is pure Act.
As creatures, we bear relation to God. He does not bear relation to us.
Frisbee| 1.14.11 @ 7:21PM
Eduard wrote: "Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, which is where He gets his divinity".
Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity. He doesn't get His Divinity from the Holy Spirit. He was conceived in the flesh by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Eduardo| 1.15.11 @ 11:20AM
You are correct, Frisbee. The Son is Divine in His own right. Thanks for clearing that up. I knew I wasn't saying that quite right, so thanks for providing the correction and clarity. Take care, my friend. Over and out.
Christopher Landrum | 1.14.11 @ 5:37PM
And the Church says: "Where are the men? Where did they go?" and the Men answer: "What is the Church? And what does it have to do with us?"
And the Church says: "Ask not what the Church can do for you, ask what you can do for the Church." But the Men reply: "We have only ourselves left--the rest is memory. And the Church will take ourselves away from ourselves. Yes, we can (and most often do) re-find ourselves and return to abiding in ourselves. Why should we let the Church swipe away this last relic of our manhood-based past? Let us sweep up our sweet crumbs of individuality into a pile instead of pounding them into dust."
Victor Hence| 1.14.11 @ 6:13PM
Christianity is growing with mind-numbing speed in China. And you know what? The pronoun problem doesn't exist there. I mean, there is a difference in the written forms of "he" and "she." But when spoken, it is "ta" and "ta," depending on the context, can mean either he or she. I always wondered why my Chinese co-worker, despite decades of being in the United States, would sometimes slip up and answer "She was here a short time ago" to the question "Where is John?" So unless you've been born with the gender-inflected pronouns, you never catch this concept fully. The point I'm trying to make is that Chinese Christianity is so much less burdened with this matter and can quickly go on to more important matters, like salvation, sin, and the daily-walk-with-Christ experience.
Frisbee| 1.14.11 @ 7:27PM
You get a similar phenomenon in French and Spanish. The gender of the possessive his and hers takes the gender of the object, not the person subject. Objects don't normally have gender in English.
But anyway, ambiguity in a language is not something for congratulations.
The Chinese have bigger and realer gender problems: like how to stop the slaughter ("spilt water") of Chinese girls. What's the imbalance, 140 million girls now?
Jeff| 1.14.11 @ 7:43PM
God is everywhere metaphorically called "He" because the masculine gender is associated with strength, power, and action.
James Harris in Hermes states those things are called masculine which are "conspicuous for the Attributes of imparting or communicating; or which were by nature active, strong, and efficacious, and that indiscriminately whether to good or to bad; or which had claim to Eminence, either Laudable or otherwise."
No one ever claimed God was male except in the being of the Son.
Frisbee| 1.14.11 @ 8:16PM
For an example of what goddess religions used to look like, check this out:
http://www.firstthings.com/ont.....te-passion
Bob | 1.14.11 @ 8:56PM
Whatever floats your boat.
For me, God is a concept for Nature and Universe. God is everything. Dividing things up is our job. God is male and female and more and neither all at the same time. We cannot truly/completely comprehend God as we are only a part of God. We only see our perspective. By coming together and sharing our individual perspectives, we can all gain a more complete picture of what or who is God.
Just my 2 cents.
Good luck on your individual and collective journey. Remember who you wanted to be.
Jeff| 1.14.11 @ 10:16PM
Bob,
God, in the Christian sense, is the self-existent cause of all dependent things; that is to say, it is not caused by anything prior but has in itself the reason for its own existence. A cause necessarily precedes, and is distinct from, its effects; thus, God, the cause of the universe, cannot be the universe.
Bob| 1.15.11 @ 12:29AM
Of what did God create the Universe, if not "himself". I choose not to focus on the distinction. People divide, God unites.
Jeff| 1.15.11 @ 2:18PM
He is not material, thus he could not have made the material universe of himself; rather He produced the world ex nihilo.
Such distinctions about the nature of God are vitally important.
Yosemeti Sam| 1.14.11 @ 10:54PM
Neutering GOD ?
'Re-Imagining' GOD!
ONE OF OMNIPOTENCE, OMNIPRESENCE and OMNISCIENCE.
Starting from WHEN,WHERE - and HOW?
T.L. Dawson| 1.15.11 @ 3:12AM
Why does everyone assume that "he," "him," and "man" only mean "male?" This is an erroneous assumption conjured up in the past two decades. Before that, "he," "him," and "man" were always gender inclusive - they could mean male or female. The words "she," "her," and "woman" were exclusive terms referring only to females.
As for the term "Father," well, what is a Father? A Father is something that is made by a female - it is a man who has created a child with a woman. What is a Son? A son is a person who was created by a female with a male. So in my perspective, the words "Father" and "Son" both imply and include a female, or a "Mother." There was, is, and never will be any instance of human life creation that does not equally involve a female.
As for the people who say that the scriptures never refer to a female Deity, well, that would be par for the course, as the scriptures don't even name Noah's wife or his daughters-in-law, from which we are all descended. But that doesn't mean they didn't exist!!!
David A| 1.15.11 @ 8:24AM
It wasn't until comments started appearing about the growth of Christianity in China, that the discussion turned to what I think is major part of the problem - namely the effect different translations/languages have on this issue. Victor H pointed out the effect of speaking/writing about the subject in (mandarin?) Chinese. My question to you that are educated in this area: How is (or whether) the gender of God (and the Holy Spirit) portrayed in the original languages (it being obvious that Jesus was male)? Do Attic Greek and Aramaic handle gender in the same way as the Romantic languages? Or do they handle it more like the Oriental languages? If the former, what gender pronouns DID the ancient documents (such as the "Dead-Sea Scrolls") use? [while I am multilingual, they are only modern versions of the languages - in this area, I am uneducated]
JS| 1.15.11 @ 2:44PM
Hebrew doesn't have a neuter gender for words, so it has to arbitrarily place words in one gender or the other. For the majority of the names of G-d, they're put in the masculine. It doesn't mean anything, because G-d is not anthropomorphic.
I suppose that in English, one could get away with using "It", but "it" is traditionally used of inanimate objects. The masculine remains the default, but one must still remember that G-d transcends linguistic and corporeal concepts like gender.
Patrick| 1.16.11 @ 5:30PM
English is hardly alone in regarding neuter gender to the inanimate.
However, if you are attempting to discuss the matter according to divine revelation, then the whole of the matter falls flat. The Lord is revealed to be the source and the guide of all existence, and so the matter of all sexual dimorphism is done according to His discretion. Linguistic analysis is as good as sports coverage on the pankration event at the 83rd Olympics.
DaveS| 1.15.11 @ 4:31PM
Never mind the Protestant phobia over masculine pronouns. It's going on in my Catholic Church. I cannot stand it. Folks, despite all the theology to the contrary, God is male. We were instructed by Christ himself to pray "Our Father, who..." Christ referred to Himself as the Son of Man. What is his connection to man? Mary, a woman. Therefore, Christ defined Mary as part of man - as all of us are, regardless of sex. And, with respect to the Holy Spirit, the masculine pronouns are used for Him as well. Any questions? Good; I've already supplied the answers.
David| 1.16.11 @ 8:54AM
My God! It's my misfortune to share a name with an idiot like you? I really don't deserve such a fate.
Please see my reply above to PsychoDad where I quote Genesis chapter 1.
It would be interesting if you could answer the question I pose there and still hold to your assertion about God's sex.
Big Leo| 1.15.11 @ 5:25PM
Since nearly everyone who addresses God as she shows very little sign of believing in God as real at all, why would we care what they call Him? As soon as they speak, they drive people out of churches that have no spine into churches that preach the gospel. In this, they perform a valuable function.
Clayton in Mississippi| 1.15.11 @ 10:46PM
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
~~ Luke 23:34
Leland Davis| 1.16.11 @ 12:03AM
I am LDS (Mormon), and I have been taught that our Heavenly Father is definitely male. Some in my church have also claimed that He may also have a female partner. When we marry, it is supposed to be an emulation of God, enabling us to become more like Him. Furthermore, in our proclamation it is stated that for us, gender is a characteristic not only of us in mortality, but also of our spirits. It is interesting, from my perspective, for me to observe this debate as to whether God has a gender.
Joe Cicalese| 1.16.11 @ 10:17AM
As a Christian, I have learned that YHVH is to be addressed in the masculine.
Now, whether or not YHVH is masculine or feminine is really of no importance. The important thing is, YHVH has enough power to send me to hell or allow me into heaven. So, YHVH can be whatever YHVH wants to be.
wodiej| 1.16.11 @ 4:24PM
First of all, the title of your article is very offensive.
Second, go get some help. You apparently have some issues about women.
Felix| 1.16.11 @ 4:45PM
It is interesting to note that one's image of God relates to the image of one's father. Look into a person's view of God then look at his eartly father and you 'll see a correlation. Strangely enough, when the feminists were neutering God the Father, they pointed out that God had many motherly characteristics. Oh, really? If you fall down and scrape your knees or hands, will God say "There, there now, let me kiss it and make it all better, or is he likely to say, "Just rub some dirt in it and you 'll be okay" ? Maybe he would even say, "It's good for you , it builds strong moral fiber.:
RM| 1.17.11 @ 1:34PM
The issue for me is stated perfectly by the rabbi in the article, when he states God is "not one who is randomly invented by His adherents."
Like most things leftist touch, they want to re-write, or change what is good and successful.
John Thomas | 1.19.11 @ 10:52AM
We in Britain often think that things in north America are a bit more wacky, on the whole, than here, but do people in the US really refer, with a straight face to "Mother God", "Creator - Redeemer ..." etc. (I though those were just comedic parodies). Well, I suppose they do. Those are the fantasies. The reality is an objectively-existing God who chose to reveal Himself to us as He; that's just the way it is. Anything else is just made up by people for their own ends. Not only sloppy thinking (as above), but as part of obtainiung/retaining power.
Adidas | 8.11.11 @ 5:37AM
is good
العاب | 4.10.12 @ 12:46PM
Someone let me know when this makes sense