Comments on: The Masculine Jesus

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:23:08 +0000

Damian, I don’t think you were meaning to divide the body, but I do think it is something that we need to be careful of. I agree, I think we should explore every aspect of God, including any characteristics that might be labeled “feminine”. And I’ve also commented on your latest post on the subject where I’ve elaborated a little. Thanks.

By: More on feminine language as described by God « Castle of Nutshells

More on feminine language as described by God « Castle of Nutshells — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:27:00 +0000

[...] language (that I’ve been taking part in here, here and here): Peter Lopez piped in, wondering why anyone would choose to describe a human male in female language? The conversation going on there is interesting. Suzanne linked to Rachel Barenblat’s poem [...]

By: Damian

Damian — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:02:35 +0000

Peter, the reasoning behind my looking is not to divide the body of Christ, or to impose ideas about God on God. It is – as you say – for our benefit – to increase our understanding about who God is. It seems to me that we know (from scripture) that God displays certain characteristics (feminine ones), and yet our tradition hasn’t picked up on this, and our language reflects this. It’s not describing God has a horse or elephant, it’s describing him in terms of a creature made in his image, and that reflects his glory uniquely. It doesn’t change anything about God – but it gives us understanding about who he is, which may change the way we perceive him, and live our lives as Christians.

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:13:29 +0000

Damian, Hiscrivener, I think it’s a non-issue. Another way to divide the body of Christ. Whether the language divide is gender, race, cultural, class, or otherwise based, it is what it is. It is humanity trying to impose – in its own very limited way – ideas about God on God. The descriptions provided in scripture are for our benefit, to give us an understanding about who God is. Jesus is also called a lion and a lamb. We can come up with ways of describing Him as an elephant, horse, or any other such animal, and it would be perfectly fine, but none of that would alter the intent of the authors of the Bible. I think sermons are an excellent example. Most sermons, I hope, are based on scripture, but they apply some Biblical principle or teaching to present-day life. I think we can do this with how we describe God, but it doesn’t change a thing – other than to clarify something for somebody.

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:01:07 +0000

Yeah, I’ve read that. I don’t have a problem with that as being one of the many aspects of “Shaddai.” I think we need all of the descriptors we can to try and describe God.

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:59:38 +0000

To follow is better…

Agreed.

By: Damian

Damian — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:29:19 +0000

I’m fully aware of that fact, hiscrivener, just as I’m aware of the patriarchal bias in much of scripture. Hence why I’m interested the entirety of Christian tradition, which, as some people have shown, does have a place for feminine language when it comes to all three parts of the Godhead.

By: hiscrivener

hiscrivener — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:59:52 +0000

And Damian, regretfully, you have to realize the Bible wasn’t just written for man… but by man. Although these oracles of God were led of the Spirit to scribe perfunctory guidelines that would stand the test of time, there’s a mindset of the day that is prevalent in the writings.

Why else would male-chauvinist pigs have anything by saying, “Well the Bible says women ain’t supposed to talk in church?” Because back then, men were stupid and didn’t let them. The principles of God are true. Man? Not so much.

Look beyond that and you’ll find the heart of the Lord – on this issue, or any other. Peace.

By: Damian

Damian — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:30:43 +0000

In the context of my previous posts, I’m more hung up on the idea that there is little feminine language to describe God in any way, shape or form. Sue has certainly picked some holes in that assertion, but nevertheless, I find it interesting that in both Father, Son and Holy Spirit language, female language amongst Christians is almost totally limited to Holy Spirit (which of course is one reason why God is so often portrayed as masculine).

With regards to Jesus’ names, Jesus’ masculinity doesn’t preclude any use of feminine language – feminine language is often used to describe males. Men can still ‘mother’, for example. It’s simply a conspicuous absence to me. (Sue, in my comments, did point out that there are a number of names that are gender-neutral, and has argued on her site since then that certain names – protector of widows, for example – are actually feminine).

By: hiscrivener

hiscrivener — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:43:15 +0000

Lopez,

Harriet Lutzky (of Univ. of Chicago’s Divinity School) has presented evidence linking the epithet of “Shaddai” with Hebrew šad “breast” as “the one of the Breast”, as Asherah at Ugarit is “the one of the Womb.”

If there is nothing that sounds feminine on that list, maybe Damian can rest easy on that nugget of apologetic gold.

Good times.

Peace,
HiScrivener