Something I don’t get and looking for clarification.

[Venari]

I apologize in advance if this seems “disjointed” I am trying to put coherence to my random thoughts/musings about this subject

After doing some catch up reading of posts. I found my self pondering some questions. My own conclusion is I really "don’t get it" on some issues. So I thought this may be a good forum to ask some of my questions.

We haven’t discussed nationalities or backgrounds too much but I am only American by default. That is one parent is the child of immigrants and the other is now an naturalized citizen... pretty much had my mother gone into labour a few hours later we would have been back home and I wouldn’t have been born in the US and wouldn’t have been granted citizenship.

From my culture at first glance looks paternalistic in reality it is not. Granted the men make most of the decisions but the women have the final say in all matters. I see America as being greatly different. I really do not see the general respect given to everyone and the deep respect for the different roles women and men play in society and in family.

I do see American society as being one of having to constantly assert ones own dominance over another or other people. I gather this from how we seem to "resolve" problems... as in with Ford the mentality seems to be "we don’t like what your doing so were going to organize people and boycott your company" as sort of economic bulling to force another to see your point of view. This is to say when an American is faced with something they don’t like there is this tendency to go the complete opposite of and make a stance there.

Which leads me to think is inclusiveness and feminist theology less grounded in actual theological "fact" and more on a reaction. I have mentioned it before but one thing that has me confused is gender inclusiveness and feminist theology, I have read a lot but none of it makes sense.
For me I guess it comes down to God was reveled in the masculine there are some terms that illuminate a feminine character as well. Overwhelmingly we are given the image of a "loving Father" not a "loving creator." Having studied the Biblical languages I do see places where some terms can be more inclusive and others I don’t.

I once was speaking at an MCC church and I used the word Kingdom, I got a slight rustle from some of the lesbians in the congregation. After service I was berated for my oppressive language. I pointed out the Queen rules the United Kingdom, at which point I was, not so politely, told I don’t understand how I am oppressing women and this lady organized a few other women not to attend any other sermons I had given... can we say boycott?

I guess I don’t see how anywhere in the Bible there is anything that is oppressive to women... I do see how people have misused it to their own agenda but that reflects only on the person and not where they are getting their message from.

So I guess my question is the ever classic "why?" Why change the bible to transform God from a father form to a creator? As I see it I can have a relationship with a God who is my father but I wonder to what extent I can have a relationship with a God who is just my creator.

-Venari

[Zerbie]

Wow, Venari, those *are* a lot of thoughts! As with many of Emproph's posts, I am only able to address one or two of them, and tangentially at best.

I can't address the Bible stuff, just not my "thing." I leave that to others.

However, I think you are making observations of American culture/attitude that very accurately apply. People *are* reactive. A culture of "rugged individualism" tends to exclude inclusivity and lends itself to what you call "bullying." The individual assertiveness we see used to be counterbalanced by another American value, "live and let live." In recent years, that second one has been degenerating while everyone's sense of independence (either individually or by group identity) has remained strong or even increased. Culturally as well as politically there is a widening gap between extreme right and extreme left and it becomes harder and harder to find, much less occupy, space in the middle. Those who find the extremes distasteful tend to pull out of debate, refrain from voting, which leaves the extreme polar opposites the only active players. This is true of feminism and the backlash, gay rights and its backlash, on and on we could go.

I disagree that American culture downplays gender stereotypes/roles. I think rather, it is hyper focused on them, either from the standpoint of 'preserving' those roles or from a standpoint of actively rebelling. There are all kinds go genderized double standards. Women are still paid an average of 70c for every dollar a male earns for the same work with equal qualifications. That's illogical and unjust. At the same time, I've seen many movies and TV shows geared towards women that make men look ridiculous in order to make women laugh at them. As a trend, it's disturbing that society deems it acceptible to ridicule an entire gender (in this case men.) Strange and incomprehensible all this is to me, as I find ridicule a distasteful thing in itself, and ridiculing entire classes of people is insulting, no matter who it is.

Something you haven't mentioned, but which I think lies buried behind your observations, is the anger level in this country. It is growing. There is a constant agitation going on. Where is there room for respecting one another in such an environment? There is no peace. Being "right" has become more important than respecting one another's humanity, and defending one's ideological principles has become more important than compassion. Look at the culture "war." Every group mounts an increasing fear campaign to agitate and motivate its members to behave a certain way. I agree the Ford boycotts have become an absurdity, but that's not the only example, also Target stores.

Everything is a moral crisis. Everything is either all black or all white. Where is the middle ground? Venari, it is disappearing. Groups have sprung up to react to one another. It's like a giant cultural game of Push Hands. As individuals, the only thing we can do is unplug from all the hysteria. Center ourselves within - we are not going to find calm or peace outside in the world. The world, especially the US these days, is seething with anger. We have to find that narrow path in the middle and live our own lives according to our best understanding of our inner guidance and the "still small voice."

Venari, one of your greatest gifts is your ability to stand outside a situation and view it from a variety of sides and angles. You have the kind of intellectual and internal strength to come to an understanding that is truly *your own.* That means you've got the guts to stand in the middle even with both "sides" screaming to win you over. Keep it up, and don't be afraid to delve into the deep places the questions take you. There is no hurry, and there is much wisdom to be gained in the process. :pray:

I doubt this actually answers your questions, now that I think about it. :p But they are points that probably need to be addressed in discussing them.

Before I post this: Just want to say I'm sorry you've run into such sore buttons at your MCC church. I think those women must have really misunderstood you. There are a lot of sore buttons in these communities, and there's not much we can do about them.

It happened to me once that I was cornered and screamed at by a group of lesbian feminists for being "too conservative" and "buying into the male hegemony" that oppressed them. It was because I was overheard to say that other people consider me very "feminine." It's true, they do. And the result of those lesbian feminists screaming at me for it? The next 5 years I began almost every sentence with "I'm not a feminist, but." And of course, I did not join any feminist organizations either as I did not want to lend my support to a bunch of hysterical overreactive mean people.

But please remember that not everyone is like that. Not everyone is going to be as reactive as the several church members you've mentioned. Every community has a variety of personalities within it. It just seems like many of the openly LGBT people you run into have major chips on their shoulders, and I'm sorry it has happened that way. Really, does it matter if we refer to God as male or female? What matters is that we worship. Sorry you've had so many bad experiences. :love:

[Zerbie]

So I guess my question is the ever classic "why?" Why change the bible to transform God from a father form to a creator? As I see it I can have a relationship with a God who is my father but I wonder to what extent I can have a relationship with a God who is just my creator.

-Venari

Oh, I missed this. "Just" your creator?! But - that's everything!! As the Father, is He not your creator??

Anyway, why does it matter if you personally relate to God as your Father or not? What matters is that you feel that personal relationship. What matters is that you love and worship. I relate to God as my Mother. When others use the masculine, I translate in my heart and the worship remains the same. So when you hear others say creator, can't that rest in your ear as "Father?"

[Venari]

Oh, I missed this. "Just" your creator?! But - that's everything!! As the Father, is He not your creator??

I think its best to say in "father" vs. "creator" the term "father" has a personal element to it that "creator" lacks. A father does create but the role goes deeper then just the creation process. While as creator seems to be stuck in the creation process.

I love to sculpt and occasionally attempt pottery. While I am in the process of making a not so quite masterpiece I am devoting my attention fully to the medium I am shaping. When it is finished there is no more interaction between me and what I had created ... I guess that is where I get hung up on God as a creator and not as a father. If his only role was to create me and not be my father then there doesn’t seem to be a place for love and interaction.

I guess creator seems to carry a heavy agnostic weight. I personally believe in a God who desires our fellowship and interaction and not one that wants to sit back and just observe what was created.

-Venari

[awediot]

hey Venari- (hows the bike)

Why must it be either or? And Gods still sculpting away...

[Venari]

hey Venari- (hows the bike)

Why must it be either or? And Gods still sculpting away...

The bike is great ... except it has been raining the last week and I am being cautious since I haven’t ridden in a few years :mad:

Well, I guess that is part of why I am posting. From my experiences with inclusive/feminist theology God needs to be referred to by anything but "father." Frankly I see no reason why God should or needs to be anything but "father." (simplification I know)

As I posted it could be a cultural thing where I am just got seeing it. So I was hoping someone who better knows or understands the reason behind inclusive and feminist theology could explain it better.

-Venari

[Zerbie]

Hey Venari,

I'm not too into the importance of re-naming things, as long as you use a word that points in the direction of what is meant, that's enough for me.

There are layers of reasoning for why folk refer to God as anything other than Father, reasons which I've not paid sufficient attention to, to address. Some of them have some validity on one level or another. But ultimately, it does not matter - what matters is that we worship.

There is some validity to those concerns, so I would say if you're really curious to know what it's based on, go do some research, read a few "feminist" books, get to know the basis behind it. I haven't done so myself, because it wasn't important enough to me. I relate to God as the Mother, and if I hear Father, I still connect to the meaning I resonate with. It is the same Being, after all, whether we call it Mother, Father, Creator, Friend, Beloved. . . .

Beyond the issue of validity to the re-naming discussion, there is also reactivity, as you pointed out yesterday. There is a LOT of that, and as with anything, it sometimes gets taken to absurdity.

Ultimately, it is the connection with God that matters, not what syllable comes out our mouth in referring to That Being. It is not about intellectuality, it is not about politics. It is about *being.*

[dewdrop_world]

Just a couple of disjointed thoughts:

- I think borrowing the Hegelian idea of thesis - antithesis - synthesis may be helpful here. The thesis is the idea of the father God. Some have felt hurt, even betrayed, by the thesis so they come up with the antithesis of feminist and gender-inclusive theology. It's of the nature of the antithesis to reject the thesis wherever it appears, even to the point of excess.

What interests me (in some way or another, this has always interested me as far back as I can remember) is the synthesis, bringing together what look like opposites into a broader and deeper vision. What can the father God teach the mother God? What can the mother God teach the father God?

It's also true that people deeply invested in the thesis will consider the antithesis (and even the process of synthesis) deeply threatening. I see this a lot over in the UMC bulletin boards, where certain (usually unspecified) new ideas are quickly labeled "apostasy" and grounds for dismissal from the church. This troubles me because I thought the Methodists were pretty reasonable compared to, say, the Southern Baptists. In the end, I guess no denomination is safe from a persecution complex.

- I don't think agnostic is quite the right word to use for creator-God theology. "A-" = negative prefix; "-gnost-" = of or relating to knowledge. An agnostic is one who believes that God cannot be fully known to human faculties, while a belief in a creator God posits a specific kind of relationship between God and the universe (which a true agnostic would consider at best conjecture, based on nothing that can be conclusively demonstrated within human understanding).

I consider myself to hold a quasi-pantheistic agnostic view. Definitely not an atheist -- I don't think people have the ability to know whether God does or doesn't exist. I also don't think people can know the essence of God fully or completely. We may draw inspiration from one or another view of God, but every human view of God is at best incomplete (if not outright mistaken in some ways). I also find, the longer I live, observe and pray, that the idea of a God who exists separate from the universe and controls it has less and less compelling force with me. More and more, God seems to be everything, from a blade of grass to a mountain, to my loving partner, to someone I hate.

This brings a strong element of humility into my spirituality -- if I don't have all the answers, and neither does, for instance, Dr. Anderson, there's no need to be afraid! Someone who disagrees with me might be there to teach me something I wouldn't have thought of by myself. BUT -- this is important -- the thing that I'm supposed to learn from him might be very different from what he thinks he is supposed to teach me.

That also fits in with my interest in synthesis.

Interesting topic. I'm eager to see where it goes --
James

[awediot]

From my experiences with inclusive/feminist theology God needs to be referred to by anything but "father." Frankly I see no reason why God should or needs to be anything but "father."

Uncompromising statement. Both sides are sexist and narrow minded. I'd think you would understand at least that much of each other quite well...

So I was hoping someone who better knows or understands the reason behind inclusive and feminist theology could explain it better.

(See Dew-Drop World for that one) all I can offer is my two-bit opinion. I, like Zerbie, find the topic intriguing, but maybe not worthy of all nighters....

First, if you consider the history of oppressing women and their understandable resentment, their preference toward an empowering and nurturing FEMININE deity is only natural. The term "father" is loaded. Combine this with the generally accepted role of the feminine, (nurturing, protective, gentle, emotional, strong intellectually, supportive, clean and sensitive) and the brutal, uncaring, spiritually dull and self-destructive good ol' boys mess of a path the world frequently chooses, and is seen as being the MASCULINES fault... "if only women ruled the world." (ain't going there in this post). The improvement the Goddess represents is easy to comprehend... Now, the militancy and blind insistence that may bolster it, puts the -ist in femini-, and why some are drawn to that extreme, is as varied and similar as others who are drawn to the limits of thought. That is far beyond this thread...

I can echo the sentiment of both Zerbie's and Dewdrop's ideas that the descriptive monikers we apply to God can shift as we grow, as our mood changes and as different aspects of God's godness are either contemplated, worshiped, argued, or accepted and dismissed. I cannot go quite as far to say "Beloved" or a "blade of grass" , the "Man Upstairs" or "Lord" in any way describe the same object, or inspire similar devotion. And I am not sure that a rose by any other name guarantees we are talking about the same thing at all. It is clearly not a given.

The belief behind words gets clarified or smeared by them. They ought to be chosen carefully. For me, "Father" is intended to invoke a solid, reliable, answer bearing retreat, waiting with open arms that know you better than you know yourself, and a Love much deeper than the stern, on the money rebukes reveal. A "Mother" gives and comforts, reassures and nourishes, ever more forgiving, reflecting faith in you no matter your failings. The "Creator" is before the origin, out of reach, above reproach, emotionalism, and having given you the brain to question or doubt, always that step ahead of what it may make you think next. "God" is how we try to package it, how we grasp at it, bring it down to Earth and let it raise us from it...

So many endless, interlocking facets that still lead back to the loop of your personal understanding and experience of one little word. Whichever it is, use it wisely and intentionally. It is the most important one out there...

[Jamie McDaniel]

I think borrowing the Hegelian idea of thesis - antithesis - synthesis may be helpful here. The thesis is the idea of the father God. Some have felt hurt, even betrayed, by the thesis so they come up with the antithesis of feminist and gender-inclusive theology. It's of the nature of the antithesis to reject the thesis wherever it appears, even to the point of excess.

Someone who disagrees with me might be there to teach me something I wouldn't have thought of by myself. BUT -- this is important -- the thing that I'm supposed to learn from him might be very different from what he thinks he is supposed to teach me.

I'm going to think about these two ideas some more. They seem to offer a way to gain an "overhead" view of what is taking place on the surface. And not just in regards to the topic being discussed in this thread. So kudos to dewdrop_world for sharing those two gems.

I think I first heard God referred to as "she" from Mel White in 2001. I don't think I heard anything else, so disruptive that was to my own understanding of God at the time. Having been Southern Baptist, we freely interchanged "God," "Lord," "Heavenly Father," and "Jesus" when praying to the same being. But not once had we ever used "she," "mother," or any other feminine term. Par for the course, I suppose, for a denomination that only allows pastors and deacons to be men.

But I also remember a time in 2002 when a friend in Soulforce used the word "father" and it generated an internal negative reaction in me. It wasn't in reference to God, though. We were outside the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington D.C. handing out flyers to the bishops and my friend was saying, "Good morning, Father. Can I give you this from Soulforce?" Being a baptist, no way was I using the term "Father" for a member of the clergy.

So these are two times when "she" and "father" were unsettling to me personally. I have since come to appreciate the use of feminine language when talking about God. Not all the time, mind you, but some of the time. Since becoming much more liberal in my theology, I've even been known to drop in the pronoun "she" when talking about God with Southern Baptists just for the shock effect. On my own, though, I tend to primarily use "God," even mentally replacing the pronoun "He" with "God" when reading the Bible. And I've heard some use "Heavenly Parent" or "Our Creator" when reciting the Lord's Prayer, though I still say "Our Father who art in heaven..." during that time. (Then again, I'm not regularly attending a church at the moment.)

Another thing that has yet to be brought up in this discussion is how a person's relationship with their parents might have either a positive or negative effect on the use of terms which imply a gender when talking about God.

Conversations like this one are interesting and I sometimes wonder if God knew all the ramifications of throwing gender into humanity. We are created just a little lower than the angels, yet they supposedly do not divide along gender lines like we do. And didn't Jesus imply that our future has us being like them at the resurrection?

[Dash]

For me, the terms "he/she/father/mother" are too anthropomorphic (if that's the right term). Using them usually makes me too conscious of applying the image of a human onto the divine. Even the term "God" is a suspect to me, because I tend to have that awful picture of a big, white-bearded guy in a robe standing on a cloud.

My favorite term is "lover." But only for the connotation of intimacy.

As far as the masculine vs. feminine aspect of this question...I feel foolish participating in the patriarchal (often oppressively so) and male-centric social conventions handed down to us by ancient tribal cultures. If I must use a gender-specific pronoun, I alternate equally between genders. Neither is sufficient, though.

[tdogg]

I kinda imagine that the Bible was written in such gender specific form with emphasis on the 'male' because most of it (if not all) was written by males. And back in the day at least males were the societal dominant gender, with the women pretty much being their support staff and laying low in the background. That's how it read for me anyway with a few exceptions of course. It's very much a male-dominated read (the Bible). If God is all-mighty and powerful, our creator and master/leader, the beginning and the end of all - then I would think God would be above any gender-identifying or -restricting roles.

[NathanATX]

Of course, Esther kinda throws male-domination on it's butt. I wonder why preachers don't seem to address that?

[vaguy78]

I apologize in advance if this seems “disjointed” I am trying to put coherence to my random thoughts/musings about this subject

After doing some catch up reading of posts. I found my self pondering some questions. My own conclusion is I really "don’t get it" on some issues. So I thought this may be a good forum to ask some of my questions.

We haven’t discussed nationalities or backgrounds too much but I am only American by default. That is one parent is the child of immigrants and the other is now an naturalized citizen... pretty much had my mother gone into labour a few hours later we would have been back home and I wouldn’t have been born in the US and wouldn’t have been granted citizenship.

From my culture at first glance looks paternalistic in reality it is not. Granted the men make most of the decisions but the women have the final say in all matters. I see America as being greatly different. I really do not see the general respect given to everyone and the deep respect for the different roles women and men play in society and in family.

I do see American society as being one of having to constantly assert ones own dominance over another or other people. I gather this from how we seem to "resolve" problems... as in with Ford the mentality seems to be "we don’t like what your doing so were going to organize people and boycott your company" as sort of economic bulling to force another to see your point of view. This is to say when an American is faced with something they don’t like there is this tendency to go the complete opposite of and make a stance there.

Which leads me to think is inclusiveness and feminist theology less grounded in actual theological "fact" and more on a reaction. I have mentioned it before but one thing that has me confused is gender inclusiveness and feminist theology, I have read a lot but none of it makes sense.
For me I guess it comes down to God was reveled in the masculine there are some terms that illuminate a feminine character as well. Overwhelmingly we are given the image of a "loving Father" not a "loving creator." Having studied the Biblical languages I do see places where some terms can be more inclusive and others I don’t.

I once was speaking at an MCC church and I used the word Kingdom, I got a slight rustle from some of the lesbians in the congregation. After service I was berated for my oppressive language. I pointed out the Queen rules the United Kingdom, at which point I was, not so politely, told I don’t understand how I am oppressing women and this lady organized a few other women not to attend any other sermons I had given... can we say boycott?

I guess I don’t see how anywhere in the Bible there is anything that is oppressive to women... I do see how people have misused it to their own agenda but that reflects only on the person and not where they are getting their message from.

So I guess my question is the ever classic "why?" Why change the bible to transform God from a father form to a creator? As I see it I can have a relationship with a God who is my father but I wonder to what extent I can have a relationship with a God who is just my creator.

-Venari


I think since God is Both Father and Creator that e should relate to him as both, as well as the rest of his attributes.