Jesus Manifesto - Latest Comments in Our Heavenly Mother

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

James — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:52:36 -0000

Orthodoxy is basically what the church across all 'party' lines has consistently held to be true about who God is and what He has done. To move beyond that is heterodox or heretical.

I guess my problem is when WE begin to project our image of who we think God should be in place of how He has actually revealed Himself. God did not come as the only begotten daughter. Furthermore, Jesus consistently calls God, Father, Abba, etc. I don't know about you but I am not willing to go beyond Jesus' own expression of how to address God.

Again, In the rare instances where feminine language is used to describe God it is done within the constraints of the language, because one cannot speak about certain things in a way that requires one to make up words that do not exist. For example, words such as disciples, prophets, etc. in Greek follow patterns that take feminine forms though they traditionally describe masculine 'offices'. My point in all of that is to show that before making too much of gender in Hebrew or Greek one must have a clear understanding of how those languages work (and do not work).

As to the Holy Spirit being equated to Woman Wisdom, I am unaware of any orthodox Christian writings that make that connection. In fact to do so, means that the Word (Jesus) was not present and active in creation as the Gospel of John proclaims, but Wisdom personified was, as stated in Proverbs through symbolic language within the realm of Hebrew poetry. To give weight to such connections creates theological propositions that are untenable within the realm of Christian orthodoxy.

When I first posted on this site I stated that I base my theological beliefs within the realm of orthodoxy because in my opinion the problem with Christianity in America today is that Christians have bought into the American ideal of rejecting authority and applied it to historic Christianity to the extent that everyone is doing what is right in his own eyes.

Finally, a professor and friend of mine defined the role of theology and the theologian in the following way: "The task of the theologian is to help the church watch its language." Unfortunately, theologians are a very, very small fraction of a minority within the church, which is probably why Christianity in America is an inch deep and a mile wide.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Mark Van Steenwyk — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:03:04 -0000

Just to clarify: I affirm that it is orthodox to say: "God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." This is certainly at the heart of orthodoxy. I guess my point in my earlier comment is that if someone says "God is my mother" this isn't to say that they are unorthodox, or heretical. Just to be clear.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Jason Barr — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:55:04 -0000

Joel, yeah I'll go with your revised statement to the extent that language can/ought to be abstracted from concrete realities in order to aid our understanding of the world in which we live and the God we serve.

James, I'd go a bit further than Mark does and question your use of "identity" vs. "character and nature" regarding masculine and feminine language to describe God. It seems to me you equate orthodoxy with seeing God identified as male. If that is what you are saying, I find that highly problematic. I rather think instead that God's self revelation includes masculine and feminine aspects and we need to talk about God in ways that are faithful to both. To me it seems entirely plausible that, had the ancient world been more matriarchal as opposed to patriarchal, that God could and would have revealed himself (see how I'm not opposed to using the masculine pronoun) with predominantly feminine imagery. It's not a problem for God, because God is the source of the image that dwells in all humankind, male and female.

And I qualified my mention of ruach as feminine above, and will reproduce it here:

I know that masculine/feminine forms of word does not make them “purely” male or female (as if anything was “purely male” with no feminine characteristics, or vice versa), but there is a long, long strand of tradition connecting the Spirit of God and Holy Spirit with the wisdom of God, which in Greek is sophia (the Greek for “spirit” is neuter) and considering it a feminizing counterpart to the perceived masculinizing “Father”. As I mentioned above, recognizing and meditating on God’s “feminine side” was prevalent in the medieval period, but the association of “Spirit” with femininity goes all the way back to the intertestamental period, before Christ’s time. It’s not just that the Hebrew word is feminine, it’s that the concept associated with it has traditionally been considered in a sense feminine.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Mark Van Steenwyk — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:02:32 -0000

I feel uncomfortable with making exclusively masculine language in reference to God's identity part of "orthodoxy." Does it really need to be a matter of orthodoxy?

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

James McMahon — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:44:12 -0000

I am a little late to the conversation, but will make a couple of observations.

1) One should not make too much of the gender of words in Hebrew (unless the text itself lends itself to that interpretation). I base this on the fact that while the word for spirit in Hebrew is a feminine word, its equivalent in Greek is neuter. All that is showing us is that the biblical writers were bound to the language rules in which they wrote, i.e. they couldn't really make up nonexistent words and expect readers to know what they meant.

2) I am very hesitant to go beyond God's own self revelation. Consistently throughout Scripture God is revealed as Divine Father, King, Judge, Creator, etc. While there are feminine nuances in Scripture directed towards God, these are exceptions and are usually trying to make a point about the character and nature of God not the identity of God.

3). Paul uses motherly language for himself in how he viewed his relationship to other Christians. Does that mean that Paul was actually female? No, he was using the language to make a point. I think this is probably closest to what occurs in the OT in the small number of feminine references to God.

Could I be wrong? Yes, but I choose to accept Christian orthodoxy until the time when I stand in the presence of the Lord and am shown otherwise.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Joel — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:27:51 -0000

Perhaps I should have phrased this comment like this:
The subjugation of women due to male domination and other issues brought up SHOUDL BE totally different issues apart from what we choose to call God.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Jason Barr — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:24:37 -0000

The subjugation of women due to male domination and other issues brought up are totally different issues apart from what we choose to call God.

I'm not so sure this is the case, though they don't necessarily have to be intrinsically related. If using masculine language can be conceptually divorced from conceiving of God as male, then more power to people who want to use predominantly masculine language (though I would caution against using masculine language EXCLUSIVELY for the simple reason that Scripture does not do so). However, recognizing that the language we use cannot necessarily be so easily divorced from the actual content of our conceptions, I think it's appropriate to utilize a healthy dose of feminine language and imagery in describing God.

Language is such an integral part of how we view the world, I find it incredibly hard to believe there is no relation between the language we use about God and the ways in which we conceive of God.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Casey Ochs — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:28:01 -0000

I will continue to affirm fatherhood language in relation to God.
I will take care to teach people that they ought to love one-another, being sensitive to correct stupid thinking about the inferiority of women (both in its blatant and subtle forms).
I will extend grace to those who struggle with masculine language in relation to God. This is a pastoral issue that needs long-term sensitivity and care

Bravo!

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Mark Van Steenwyk — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:17:06 -0000

It completely depends upon the ox. For example, Paul Bunyan's blue ox (named Babe) is way cooler than any ostrich that has ever lived.

I know you're being funny, somasoul, but the subjugation of humans by others is something that is sadly too common to ever be funny. And, whether we like it or not, men have fused Biblical language of God's masculinity to support their devaluing of women.

True, true. Our approach should be to teach others to love one another and support women in our churches, rather than trying to change our language about God. I'm certainly not interested in doing that. But I think it is wholly appropriate for Jordan to raise the issue the way he did. The conversation that has resulted has been excellent.

So, here's what I'm taking from this:

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

somasoul — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:05:24 -0000

ox's aren't as cool as ostriches though they may be superior.

I think I just participated in animalism, where I subjugate one animal and exploit him and think others are better and more therefore better. How does God feel about this?

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

jurisnaturalist — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:49:35 -0000

The world takes any differences among individuals and generates distinctions which can be manipulated into justifications for discrimination and rules for allocation of power.
The church ought to look upon our differences as manifestations of God from different perspectives.
I think God allows for hierarchy but not superiority. We recognize it within the godhead and He utilizes sex as a tangible reminder to us. The point of all of these distinctions is the same, to demonstrate His ultimate sovereignty. Among Christians we are to recognize no privilege, but we are to respect order. We are not to lord over one another, but we are submit to one another.
I prefer that a pastor be a man, and that a man be the head of a home. The point of this position is not to say that men are stronger or more aptly suited to these positions, but to magnify their inability to meet the requirements of either role despite natural advantage. Each of us ought to say, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me," including being a pastor or a head of a family, but we also ought to recognize that God, in seeking His glory, has established order to demonstrate His sovereignty. In other words, it's not all about us.
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Casey Ochs — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:44:55 -0000

Not ostrich, German for ox, (like dumb as...). Yes, you do get extra brownie points.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

somasoul — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:35:49 -0000

I agree with Casey. His last name also kinda looks like the word "Ostrich".

Extra brownie points.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Casey Ochs — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:12:42 -0000

Well, we certainly opened up a can of worms.

The primary and maybe only important issue here is how God wants us to relate to Him. Scripture and the vast weight of Church understanding on this issue affirms that we are to relate to Him as Father/Abba (even if we call Him Adonai or something else). This was Jesus' point by continually referring to the first person of the Trinity as Father. Certainly Jesus is not prohibiting us from calling God Yahweh, Adonai or some other name, but by calling Him "heavenly mother" you are in danger of missing the Scriptural truth of God's fatherhood entirely. Jesus' repeated use of the term Father and Heavenly Father was deliberate. He was trying to make a point.

We need to be discussing what Godly fatherhood is. This discussion certainly would comprise the feminine nature of God, but in no way does it lead to the logical or Scriptural assumption that He should be called "heavenly mother". If this is your personal conviction fine, but if your desire is to create a new doctrine, or new name for God then you're heading into turbulent waters.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Joel — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:57:09 -0000

While I feel that a good number of points have been made in this discussion, I think that the topic of what we should call God is being pulled in a direction that it doesn't need to go. The subjugation of women due to male domination and other issues brought up are totally different issues apart from what we choose to call God. I feel that we could better serve God by actually addressing the issues that need to be addressed. Choosing to call God father or mother is not going to solve any of these problems. In fact, lets suppose that 21st century theology should take up the view that God should be called mother rather than father. Perhaps then the subjugation of men by women would be the result. That would not be any more right than the other way. It certainly won't solve any problems. The simple fact is that we should all submit to each other regardless of gender.

I will choose to call God "Father" because that is what I am commanded to do. I recognize that someone else may choose to call God something else. My calling God "Father" does not mean that I feel that he is exclusively masculine. I accept that God is a synthesis of male and female traits.

This whole discussion of what to call God is beginning to remind me of a quote made earlier on this website.

Jason Barr on January 26th, 2008 8:36 pm
There’s a legend that, while the armies of Mahomet II were preparing to enter Constantinople that Christian theologians spent their time debating questions such as “what color eyes had the Virgin Mary?” and “if a fly falls into holy water, is the water defiled or the fly sanctified?”.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Jordan Peacock — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:48:13 -0000

PS, awesome article that deals a bit with some of the higher-level concepts at work here.

Thoughts on "Reading the Bible with the Damned"

http://ifmercyfalls.wordpre...

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Jordan Peacock — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:45:11 -0000

Let me affirm Mark here. Changing orthodoxy/praxy simply to conform to culture should be avoided at all costs. In the case of gender identification of God, the orthodoxy has been correct for quite a while, in virtually every belief statement I've come across; none describe God as a 'man' or a 'woman', which is appropriate and theologically correct.

Nevertheless, the orthopraxy has been to identify God as a man. Whether this was deliberate or incidental doesn't particularly matter. The result has been that culture has shifted to the point where that practice does not effectively communicate the theology it is based upon. We miscommunicate the concept of God to a modern (post-modern? whatever) audience when exclusively male terminology is used. And the fears addressed above regarding the potential heresy that could develop if reference is made to God in exclusively feminine terms has already occurred to varying degrees with the masculine.

Therefore, to enforce the practice and theology that God includes aspects of both and is limited to neither, both terms should be used. This applies to all the other descriptions of God mentioned above as well, but to a lesser effect because we are far less likely to fall into issues identifying God as a an animal or inanimate object.

The concerns for racist and classist language are more appropriate, however both have been rather concretely dealt with: despite Jesus being poor and Jewish. The controversy between Paul and Peter over Gentiles and the law and Peter's vision dealt a sound blow to the Jew/Law-centric teachings that arose immediately after Christ. The early church did not seem to have too many issues with class, including everyone from temple prostitutes and tax collectors to business men & women and nobility.

However the gender issue has lasted longer, and there are dozens of historical reasons as to why; that's a good follow up article if anyone's interested (Kris?). This has not prevented women from engaging in ministry, but it has been a far from egalitarian process.

Language is not a cure-all; far from it. But our understanding of reality is often limited to how we can describe it, and it is a simple but powerful first step in taking measures to bridge the gaps between theory and reality in recognizing both male and female aspects of God and of the church body as a whole.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Mark Van Steenwyk — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:26:39 -0000

Dude. You're simplifying my argument. The truth is, I can build really good arguments for doing those things (except for the squirrel shaving one). ;)

Here's the argument I'm making:

1) The Bible uses predominantly masculine language for God.
2) But the Bible employs some feminine imagery for God as well.
3) Jesus almost exclusively calls God "Father" though uses additional imagery in parables.
4) Jesus tells his disciples to call God "Father" (I can make some really good speculations about why he does this...but that is for another time). This isn't a command of prohibition (meaning, but don't you dare call him anything else), but one that readjusts their understanding of God in a more intimate way (and of course there is more going on here as well).

Conclusion: Certainly the overwhelmingly dominant thrust is to use masculine language, but there is certainly room for feminine language. Since the Bible doesn't prohibit it, and it isn't heresy, and there haven't been any good theological reasons put forward why someone shouldn't, we MUST give people freedom, otherwise we're just creating a rule simply because we're uncomfortable about where it could lead.

And this is taking a very very conservative read of Scripture. I personally think that there is a time and place for using feminine language in much bolder ways.

This has nothing to do with being political correct. Don't assume that, man. Sometimes Old Skool just means "sticking with status quo because I'm afraid." We shouldn't change our perespective simply because culture changes. But we should always feel liberty to always come back to our deepest held convictions and re-examine them. And, I must say, we do have to let the light of culture shine into Scripture. Why? Because almost every conservative evangelical in America stopped doing that and mistakenly believes that 17th Century theology is orthodoxy.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

somasoul — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:09:55 -0000

There have been several comments indicating that Jesus never told us to NOT call God mother, therefore we can.

Jesus never told us to not baptise cats.
Jesus never told us to not look at porn online.
Jesus never told us to emabrk on squirrell shaving opportunities.

Jesus didn't say lots of stuff. That doesn't give me the right to do whatever I wish because Jesus didn't mention it (or the Gospel writers ignored them).

I was talking to a good friend of mine form church, a mennonite. And the issue of homosexuality came up. She said something akin to "I support homosexuals because Christians have done wrong to them over the years."

That isn't a reason to support something (nor is it a reason not to). I get that Christianity has seemed patriarchal. I get it. I really do. But that's just a crappy reason to call God mother. Jesus never called God mother. I won't.

Maybe God is genderless. Maybe He isn't. I dunno. But I'm not gonna flip scripture to be politically correct.

"Someone mentioned earlier that Jesus came as a MAN, which apparently means that masculinity was valued over femininity or something like that."

I said this. I hate women and want to enslave them to do my laundry and pleasure me. (Of course I'm kidding.)

I don't know how calling God "Father" sexist. But I guess it's a brave new world.

I'm Old Skool.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Kris — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:09:19 -0000

P.S. I recommend folks heading to Dr. Keith Drury's website http://www.tuesdaycolumn.com and looking up the section 'women in ministry' to find sound resources in the affirmative for empowering women in the church. the biblical equality website is also a good lead.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Kris — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:01:41 -0000

Before plunging into such a difficult topic, I suggest that if you have not first done proper research and reading you hold any drastic opinionated statements..I say this humbly.

I'm currently writing a thesis paper on medieval christian women and their contribution to the church, and how their gender identity did not inhibit them as the Church is historically misogynist, but women are called to minister just as men are, because we are spiritually equal. You can read some of my biographical sketches and thesis questions on my website.

I believe that God mainly revealed 'him'self as Father and masculine, because He is a begetter. One should understand the difference between gender and sex. God has neither testicles, but as far as Spirit, has attributes that are considered mainly feminine...like nurturing, et-cetera...although men can exhibit those qualities, just as women can exhibit a traditionally masculine trait like leadership or strength. We should look to God as the begetter, and man and woman as complementary halves to discovering each other as what God is whole. That infant statement can be revised or discarded, it is just my thoughts up to date.

Grace, Peace, and empowerment.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Renascent — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:50:22 -0000

Tricky issue. But I really like this comment:

"But Jesus never tells us to ONLY call God our father. I think this has to be an area where we give people the freedom to follow their conscicence (sic), so long as they don’t reject the idea that God is Father. Certainly Jesus called God his Father. And we are to call him father as well…but this wasn’t a limiting statement, but an opening up to the possibility of calling God somethign (sic) much more intimate and meaningful than simply calling God by one of his titles."

I think a lot of conservative Christians will, on one hand, absolutely affirm that God is genderless (or, in Mark's words, "genderful") and yet on the other hand absolutely deny that we can call God "Mother," simply because there is so little Biblical warrant for it. I think I find myself in the same place; I'd be very hesitant to pray "Our Mother, who is in Heaven...." But again, Jesus never said we can't address God as "Our Mother." So I'd be willing to leave it up to individual conscience...as long as no one is claiming that God is specifically one gender or another.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Mark Van Steenwyk — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:45:40 -0000

Indeed. This raises the question: How do we affirm our sisters in Christ? How can we shape our imagination in new ways so that we move away from subjugation, control, and marginalization and into mutual submission, liberty, and a recognition of the ways in which the Spirit can work through our sisters?

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Casey Ochs — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:27:18 -0000

"I think this has to be an area where we give people the freedom to follow their conscience, so long as they don’t reject the idea that God is Father."

Mark, I agree with this. Like I said earlier, if one has a personal conviction or revelation about this, it really is none of my business and they are free to follow their conscience. Controversy arises when a personal revelation or conviction is advanced as doctrine.

Jordan's article brought up some good issues, particularly as it relates to the Church's historical subjugation of women. This issue certainly needs further discussion.

Re: Our Heavenly Mother

Mark Van Steenwyk — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:22:03 -0000

But Jesus never tells us to ONLY call God our father. I think this has to be an area where we give people the freedom to follow their conscicence, so long as they don't reject the idea that God is Father. Certainly Jesus called God his Father. And we are to call him father as well...but this wasn't a limiting statement, but an opening up to the possibility of calling God somethign much more intimate and meaningful than simply calling God by one of his titles.

Let me put it another way. Jesus tells his discipels to call God "Father." We don't assume that he would be cross with his disciples for sometimes referring to God as "Adonai," do we? Nor should we be restrictive about someone calling God: "The One who nurtures and cares for me like a mother" or "Nurturing Giver of Life" of "The One who birthed me."

So, to answer your question: We should do the same. We should call God our father. But that doesn't mean that is the ONLY thing we call God. No Christian has ever held that belief, I think.