Toward a Radical Inclusiveness

redblue22

You Are Special.
Jan 13, 2012
10,733
1,498
✟73,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Fair enough.

I'm just try to understand the notion that seems to have been set forth in other threads - namely, that God is literally male only. And since I don't accept that idea, I'm trying to understand what is within the bounds of Christian practice in how we talk about God.

From the beginning my issue has been claims elsewhere on this site that God as "Father" means God is actually male. In the OP I acknowledge I'm fine with Scriptural language, but I'm definetly not fine with thinking God is solely male.

Right, this is my concern. If "male & female" are both made in God's image, then that implies God is not solely one or the other. At least to me.

That being the case, female descriptions of God should hold more weight. The whole use of gender is metaphor or simile. This is why I pointed out that Jesus described himself as female.
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Jesus was talking about "Oh Jerusalem Jerusalem, how often I would have gathered you as a mother hen gathers her chicks, but ye would not"
I am paraphrasing from somewhere

Most of us would admit that there is such a thing as a "feminine personality"
So what is the source of that?
Has to be God
We are made in God's image

If God is way more masculine than the most masculine man we can think of, then God is also way more feminine than the most feminine woman we can think of

Jesus is definitely described as pre-existent and'
'agent of creation'
But in Proverbs 8-9, the feminine figure of Wisdom (Gr- Sophia) is also described as pre-existent and 'agent of creation'

Zechariah ch 5 seems to describe
'Lady angels with wings'
Doing God's bidding

In New Testament
We see Priscilla in a Teacher role
Instructing Apollos, who was already
'Mighty in the Scriptures'
Whether she taught alongside Aquilla, her husband, it doesn't matter
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Paul, though elsewhere seemingly negative towards women in some sense, nevertheless had the important epistle to the Romans carried there by Phoebe the deaconess
(Yeah, i know the Greek word can also just mean
'Servant'
But that's what a Deacon is
Servant

Phillip had 4 virgin daughters who PROPHESIED

So we have New Testament females in roles of Teacher, Deaconess, and Prophetesses

Pronouns? We are just doomed by semantics...

His/her
Him/her

Sexist because alphabetically her should come first
Unlike he/she

I thought, biologically, all embryos start out female, but I am no scientist, it's just "what I have heard" from scientists...

Sigh.

Galatians ch 3 somewhere
" in Christ is no Jew nor Greek, bond or free, no male or female"

Sheesh.

Somewhere between some misogynist male supremecy and an outlandish "whole other female name of God that Sylvia Browne had revealed to her by Francine, her familiar spirit-guide"
Must be a middle ground of rationality

I cant swallow what Sylvia claimed that "Francine" says...
Though I do believe God is both masculine and feminine

Spirit (pneuma in Greek) is a neuter noun
Hebrew word for spirit is "ruach"
a feminine noun; also means "wind"

In Greek, you look at the ADJECTIVES for holy
To get at the gender of the phrase "holy spirit"
- hagios, the male of the adjective, is used over 220 times in the phrase "holy spirit"
Hagion, the NEUTER form of the adjective, is used 11 or 12
In speaking of "holy spirit" - I am talking New Testament phrases for holy spirit
Femine adjective "hagia" to my knowledge is not used in NT for holy spirit
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I agree with what Cappadocious has said. You can't understand God as Father by looking at human relationships to do so.

I have been reading Dr. Baxter Kruger's book, Across All Worlds. It's made me realize there is a basic taint in western Christianity. Most have this subtely non-trinitarian notion of God onto which they project human relationships of authority. But that's not what classical Trinitarianism is. In fact that is where the crisis that lead to the Reformation actually started, back in the middle ages when philosophers introduced Aristotle into theology, trying to understand the "is-ness" of God in human terms using the science of the day. And it's never really let up.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟60,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I've lately made an experiment out of referring to God with feminine pronouns online, except in situations where I am directly quoting something or categorizing the views of someone who doesn't. This isn't because I believe that God is anymore inherently feminine than she is masculine, or because I believe that the use of masculine pronouns is somehow wrong, but rather because I think it's a useful thought experiment to understand that at least 2 of the 3 persons in the trinity do not and never had chromosomes, sexual organs, and so on and so forth. In a biological sense, they are neither male nor female, and we know that both men and women are made in the image and likeness of God. I also have heard it said that, historically, societies with more feminine images of God tend to be more peaceful than societies with more masculine images of God, on average- which of course has nothing to do with gender itself, because we know both male and female leaders are equally capable of initiating wars or working towards peace, but might have something to do with how we perceive gender and how our perceptions of gender effect our perceptions of God and how our perceptions of God reflect our culture.

And, of course, it's important that young women growing up understand that they are equal to men, to reaffirm gender equality as a religious, ethical, societal, and cultural norm to the extent that it exists as a norm, and to bring gender equality as a norm into existence to the extent that it doesn't yet exist as a norm.

So, in general terms, I have no problem with feminine descriptions of God, although I think that we should be balanced and make sure we aren't replacing a patriarchal bias in our language with a matriarchal bias. There still must be room for masculine as well as feminine descriptions of God.

I would say that scripture should stand as-is, because it's a historical document, but that bias towards patriarchy that come from translations should be eliminated. For example, if there is no gender implied by an original verse in the original languages, bibles should be translated in such a way as not to imply gender in that verse in English. However, if there is a gender implication in the original verse, like "Father", then it should be translated "Father", because that's what it says.

Liturgy and sacraments are a tricky matter. I am inclined to say that baptisms need to keep the "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" formula to keep historical continuity and to ensure that the validity of baptisms are recognized by other churches or denominations. Though one doesn't want other churches or denominations to completely dictate your church or denomination does, churches and denominations really should be thinking not once, not twice, but many more times than twice before changing something that isn't an intrinsic matter of justice and morality that could effect sacramental validity or recognition. The Nicene Creed speaks of one baptism for the remission of sins, and we don't want a situation where there a zillion variants on baptismal formulas to the point where anytime someone changes a church or denomination, they have to be conditionally re-baptized because of potential defects of form in their previous church or denomination.

Similarly, I would be very hesitant to change much around what many of the sacramental churches refer to as the Liturgy of the Eucharist, or the part of the mass or service that surround and include the moment of consecration where the bread and the wine become of the body and blood of Christ, or whatever thing various churches and denominations feel happen at that point. Same with ordinations and so forth.

However, I do think there is room to work on this in other aspects of liturgy and prayer, sermons or homilies, blessings within and without of liturgies, prayers, etc., and introduce some gender-neutral or female language for God to give things a greater sense of balance.

One thing to consider about "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" is that while it sounds nice and does eliminate gender bias issues, there may be theological issues there that have nothing to do with gender. When we replace a traditional formula like "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" with "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier", there's an implication that we are saying the Father is the Creator, the Son is the Reedemer, and the Spirit is the Sanctifier. Actually, though, traditionally, trinitarian theology has been that all three persons in the one God are all three things.

If you look at the beginning of the Gospel of John, for instance, you'll find this:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. (NRSV)

The Word, of course, is Jesus.

So, we have some very long standing scriptural theology there that the first person of the trinity is not the sole creator and that not one thing came into being without the second person of the trinity.

But, wait, there's more. Here's the beginning of the first chapter of Genesis:

1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. (NRSV)

Historically, Christians have interpreted that "wind from God" as the Holy Spirit, and the root Hebrew word is something like "divine wind". Some Christian translations even just say Holy Spirit. So, in a way, the third person of the trinity, too, is creator.

So, in some senses, this substitution of descriptors for each person of the trinity in place of what has traditionally been there, can be thought of as implying a very different theology of the trinity that I don't think the folks who are changing this for reasons of inclusions mean to imply. That's of course, doesn't mean it can't be used, but, as I said, I'd try to keep it away from sacraments. Use it in other contexts IMO.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Why do you just restrict it to sacraments in the scholastic sense? The very idea is arbitrary unless you want to try to reintroduce the worst of medieval sacerdotalism. It's definitely incompatible with the theology expressed in Schmemann's For the Life of the World, where life itself is correctly understood as sacrament. How we talk about God absolutely matters and reflects on that.

If God as Father is just the result of patriarchy, then Jesus revelation of our relationship to God is hopelessly tied up in cultural Marxist categories. If that is the truth of it, perhaps we should all be Unitarians and just pray "to whom it may concern" and stop pretending to follow Jesus' example.

That's why I don't agree with the liberal project to refashion God as being "relevant" to whatever the latest academic fad is. I'm much more comfortable with neo-orthodoxy or postliberalism in its assertion of a real revelatory witness in the Bible or tradition, one that offers a different vision for human life.

The simplicity of the Gospel is a stumbling block for many- it has been found offensive, even foolish, to our intellectual and moral pride. Everybody wants Jesus + something else. Conservative Christians in the US want Jesus + 1950's or Victorian culture, liberals want Jesus + perpetual social revolution.
 
Upvote 0

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟60,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Why do you just restrict it to sacraments in the scholastic sense?

Well, historically, with sacraments, at least in Catholicism and in some other churches as well, you are looking for three things that make a sacrament valid: form, matter, and intent. For sacramentally oriented Christians, you generally want to be very careful about messing with the form (the rite and the words) lest you accidentally invalidate the sacrament itself. In general, you default to doing as the church has done (Which also is important when it comes to intent) out of a sense of caution, to ensure that you are still actually validly performing the sacrament (that the baptized person is really baptized, that the communion wafer really becomes the body and blood of Christ, etc.).

Now, there are some things where I think the requirements of a just loving inclusive God and treating people with value, dignity, and respect must overcome cautions in these areas. For example, Rome is currently saying that women constitute invalid matter for the sacrament of ordination, and thus can not be ordained, and any attempt to do so would have no affect and they would remain non-clergy in fact if perhaps not in terms of title. Some go so far as to say women priests are "simulating" confection of the Eucharist rather than actually consecrating it. I think Rome is wrong there (You may have seen the thread in "The Lord's Table- Liberal Catholics" where I argued that at great length) and that reform should come, and ultimately will come. However, there you are taking the "risk" because love, inclusion, and social justice absolutely demand that women be ordained. It would be a sin not to ordain them. And if God doesn't want them ordained for reasons she won't explain, maybe we ought to see what other gods are available. ;)

However, there is not really in my mind the same compelling case why we can't use "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in baptisms and other sacraments. There people are simply saying that it enforces patriarchy. Now, patriarchy isn't a good thing (Nor is matriarchy, for that matter), but what we can do is increase the use of feminine and gender-neutral terms for God elsewhere in liturgies and prayers, achieving our goal of greater gender balance and less patriarchy on the whole without putting the validity of sacraments at risk. There isn't a clear case to me that there is compelling cause why we need to risk altering the form of the sacraments significantly in order to set out to do what we want to do here, or that failure to do so specifically as it regards the sacraments would, even in the presence of counter-balancing changes elsewhere, be discriminatory or exclusive.

If God as Father is just the result of patriarchy, then Jesus revelation of our relationship to God is hopelessly tied up in cultural Marxist categories.

You're taking a giant leap there. Saying that we can also refer to God as Mother as well as Father, and that doing so might help foster a more loving, inclusive, and egalitarian culture is not denying the entire Christian story, nor is it adopting Marxism, which involved a lot of different things and a lot of extremes, when we are talking about some minor progressive changes to one specific small thing.

I mean, look, Marx called religion "the opiate of the masses". Clearly, churches aren't buying into that. I think maybe you should consider that you may have been exposed to a very conservative religious culture at some point that tends to call any moderate or progressive change communism or atheism or whatever because they are so far to the right that they've lost perspective about what the spectrum looks like to the point where they may only be able to see center-right way off in the distance and figure anything to the left of that is liberal beyond comprehension. ;) Those people with the lost perspective are drawing inaccurate conclusions because of that lack of perspective, of course.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Now, there are some things where I think the requirements of a just loving inclusive God and treating people with value, dignity, and respect must overcome cautions in these areas.

You think about God, then you reason from there. I know God by what he does. God is not an object of thought so much as a relationship.

However, there you are taking the "risk" because love, inclusion, and social justice absolutely demand that women be ordained. It would be a sin not to ordain them.

I'm not opposed to women's ordination but the word "sin" is a rather strong word as far as I'm concerned. It's also bad theology to introduce humanistic standards of equality into the sacraments (indeed, no Anglican would say we have the right to ordination). I would instead start with the fact that many women seem called to the ministry and that they are created in the image of God. Then from there, to ask if it possible for women to stand in the place of Christ (I think they can, this goes to the heart of Christology and the Incarnation, what is not assumed is not healed). This has nothing to do with ones Trinitarian theology or how we talk about God, it has more to do with anthropology and what it means to be made in God's image.

You seem to elevate the sacraments of the Church above other considerations in Christian worship. This is perhaps a reflection of your Roman Catholic background, but I don't find that any less problematic. The sacraments are not "spiritual vitamins" that we just show up to church to take divorced from the wider Christian communal life.

You're taking a giant leap there. Saying that we can also refer to God as Mother as well as Father, and that doing so might help foster a more loving, inclusive, and egalitarian culture is not denying the entire Christian story

Christ revealed God as his Father, not Mother. Quite frankly, I wouldn't fellowship in any congregation that preached otherwise.

Inclusivity should be defined by theology in the Church. In my mind, inclusion is "whosoever will, may come". It's accepting we are all sinners justified by grace, and that we are all beggars before God.

Inclusion:

That The Father, the Son, and the Spirit created this world not out of necessity (because they eternally existed in perfect love for one another) but the abundance of love and grace. And when we had fallen into sin, knowing that it would not be noble or good to let his creation fail, the Father sent his Well-Beloved Son to take upon himself our sinful human nature , born of a pure Virgin, and lived as one of us, and had to suffer death on the Cross to reconcile the whole world to himself. Having mightily rose from the dead and gloriously ascended into heaven to send down the Father's Holy Spirit for our sanctification, we begin our ascent into the divine life of the Holy Trinity, which means our glorification. God wants lots of litte "gods" around him, loving God and their neighbor and sharing in the perfect loving communion that he has always had with himself.

That's inclusion.

I think maybe you should consider that you may have been exposed to a very conservative religious culture at some point that tends to call any moderate or progressive change communism

You are borrowing Marxist categories of thought whether you consciously know it or not. I'm not talking about Communism, but the wider use of Marx in the social sciences (I studied anthropology and sociology in college, I'm very familiar with it). I see that as a breeding ground for resentment rather than the sort of reconciliation that Jesus offers. I'd rather not define Christians as against patriarchy or against anything else. I'd rather define Christianity on its own terms. Revelation has real content, it's not a wax nose.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟60,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
You think about God, then you reason from there.

Well, let's look at what I said that set up the reply I'm replying to. :)

"Now, there are some things where I think the requirements of a just loving inclusive God and treating people with value, dignity, and respect must overcome cautions in these areas."

First, the adjectives to describe God. One of them was "loving". Some would say God *is* love and to think about love is to think about God, and to think about God is to think about love. Similarly, traditionally Christians have thought of God as the ultimate in justice.

Inclusion is perhaps a value that Christians haven't always thought of God as having, but Jesus certainly included people in his group who were outcasts in their own society like prostitutes and tax collectors, had a more inclusive attitude towards women than many of his time, and ultimately his early Church wound up including and eventually being primarily constituted by the "pagan" Roman Empire in Europe, parts of Asia, and Northern Africa within a few centuries. And, ultimately, what I think you're talking about with trinity and us participating in the life it is an even more radical form of inclusion. So, while there are plenty of counter-examples, I think inclusion is a value the Christian God could be able to claim if we want that to be the case and practice inclusion in our churches.

One could also argue that treating people with "value, dignity, and respect" is something that we could say stems from the Christian view that all men and women were made in God's image, and from the Incarnation, where God in the person of Christ is both fully divine and fully human.

So, it could be argued that I *am* starting with God and reasoning from there. However, really, eh. ;) I'm not of the school that says if God wanted people to go torture, rape, and kill; that that'd be okay just because God said so. You know, being a deity doesn't automatically imply morality and carte blanche. Thinking that it does is what leads to fundamentalism, crusades, inquisitions, and religiously inspired terrorism. Instead, we ought to think of what is good and hope that God is good, in my opinion. God saying something is good isn't what makes it good, and if God said something bad was good, it wouldn't change that it was bad, rather we most hope that God and goodness are reflections of each other.

As you can tell, I would have totally "failed" that test where Abraham almost sacrificed his son. ;) I really hope that was just some sort of fable to demonstrate how faithful Abraham was and didn't literally happen, because if taken literally, neither God or Abraham look good there.

I'm not opposed to women's ordination but the word "sin" is a rather strong word as far as I'm concerned.

Well, I respect your opinion and am not trying to hold you to a litmus test. How you feel is how you feel. But, for me personally, churches are missing the mark when they fail to ordain women. That's all "sin" means in Greek, the language of the New Testament, "missing the mark". And I think many churches are right now, in a corporate sense.

It's also bad theology to introduce humanistic standards of equality into the sacraments

I don't feel humanism and Christianity are incompatible. In fact, it is some of the tenants of Christianity, and reactions to them, that perhaps brought the culture to the point where we could speak of human rights and dignity in a more substantial way than perhaps we had in the past.

(indeed, no Anglican would say we have the right to ordination).

Hmmmm. I'll bet some Anglicans would. The last Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church prior to the current one was a woman who was born Roman Catholic. There are many people who specifically joined the Episcopal Church because of it's stand on ordaining women relative to the churches and denominations they left. Now, that is not to say that any *individual* has the right to be ordained, but I think we could get many Episcopalian Anglicans to agree that women as a gender have the right to the same opportunities to explore their calling as men have when it comes to ordination. Some of the "Global South" Anglican provinces and breakaway groups in the western world disagree, of course. And I am certainly not claiming to speak for any church or denomination here in a general sense- just myself.

I would instead start with the fact that many women seem called to the ministry and that they are created in the image of God.

I agree with both of those points, even if I am not starting with them per say. :)

You seem to elevate the sacraments of the Church above other considerations in Christian worship.

That's because I do. :)

I'm not going to deny it.

I consider sacraments very important.

This is perhaps a reflection of your Roman Catholic background, but I don't find that any less problematic. The sacraments are not "spiritual vitamins" that we just show up to church to take divorced from the wider Christian communal life.

This is possibly a bit of what they call a "straw man" argument in that I've never heard anyone say "Sacraments are spiritual vitamins we just show up to church to take divorced from the wider Christian communal life", not even the most traditional sacramentally minded Roman Catholic authors I've read or people I've talked to. However, sacraments do convey God's grace in very specific and important ways, and are very important, in my view. That is not saying that nothing else matters or that sacraments are like power-ups in a video game and do everything on their own. But they do matter and they do help, is my view.

Also, metaphysical stuff aside, the rituals of the sacraments and our sharing in them together and engaging the senses in a special way have a mediative quality and connect us back 2,000 years in time to the Last Supper through generations upon generations of Christians, and forward onto who knows how long. There's a certain value and awe in that, whether it's because one literally think it does connect you to Mt. Calvary in some spiritual way, or whether it's because one just thinks about it in more symbolic terms. But I do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and I do see communion as a "thin place" where we see our bonds of unity with God and each other and with the past and the future more clearly. Maybe not so much so that I'm willing to wake up early in the morning and commune somewhere. ;) But in theory. ;)

Christ revealed God as his Father, not Mother.

Christ revealed that he called God Father. He didn't say that God was not or could not be conceived of as a Mother.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't fellowship in any congregation that preached otherwise.

That's certainly your prerogative. I'm not trying to convert you to anything- not even a belief system about the gender of God. :) I'm just chatting.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
However, really, eh. ;) I'm not of the school that says if God wanted people to go torture, rape, and kill; that that'd be okay just because God said so. You know, being a deity doesn't automatically imply morality and carte blanche. Thinking that it does is what leads to fundamentalism, crusades, inquisitions, and religiously inspired terrorism. Instead, we ought to think of what is good and hope that God is good, in my opinion.

Man... I need to make you a reading list.

We can know God is good because Jesus is the exact image of the Father. He is "the Joyous Light of the holy glory of the immortal Father"

I personally know God is good because he created me and you, and even though I'm quite a sinner at times, he's justified me at baptism and last time I went to Pentecost I had the Holy Spirit fall on me and take away my doubts. That's how I know God is good. I don't have to vainly hope for it and try to concoct some speculative theology to try to explain what God's goodness must mean.

you can tell, I would have totally "failed" that test where Abraham almost sacrificed his son. ;) I really hope that was just some sort of fable to demonstrate how faithful Abraham was and didn't literally happen, because if taken literally, neither God or Abraham look good there.

It sounds like a Breaking Bad episode... JK. Srsly, the story is about Abraham's faith in the resurrection. That's one interpretation I've heard (I think it's in an epistle?)

Christ revealed that he called God Father. He didn't say that God was not or could not be conceived of as a Mother.

But being a Christian is about following Christ's example. I've even been to churches that butcher the "Our Father" in that respect.

And in my case if I'm praying to a "Mother", it's going to be the Theotokos, the Mother of God. Not the 1st Person of a female Trinity
 
Upvote 0

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟60,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Isn't the Holy Spirit described as being feminine?

Traditionally, in Roman Catholic theology, the Holy Spirit is spoken of as male. The bible has nothing to say on the subject of the Holy Spirit's gender or lack thereof, to the best of my knowledge.

I'm just answering the question in this case, not advocating for or against the two positions described above.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
The use of feminine pronouns for the Holy Spirit would be unprecedented in western Christianity and Eastern Christianity. To my knowledge, only some ancient Syriac prayers and gnostic texts have done this, and possibly the Syriac Sinaiticus from around the 3rd century (attempts to find an interlinear translation were very difficult). I don't know Hebrew, so I can't comment on it. Just glancing over an interlinear Peshitta used by the current Syriac Church of the East, it never seems that the pronoun "she" is used for the Holy Spirit, even though the word spirit in Syriac is feminine (rukha).

In Greek, ekeinos is masculine and is used often as a substitute for a pronoun for the Holy Spirit (John 16:14), and the grammatical gender is masculine. It literally means "that one". It is usually translated as "he" in English. This is often used in the same passage with the Greek word pneuma ("spirit"), even though it is neuter. So grammatical gender does not have to agree necessarily when speaking of the same concept.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0