Ms. God

[ebia]

Is it offensive to refer to God with the feminine pronoun?

No.

Jesus human nature was male, but his divine nature is neither (or both) genders. Indeed Proverbs and the Wisdom of Solomon both refer to the Wisdom of God as "she", and a bit of comparison with Paul and John quickly throws up the point that the Wisdom of God in those two books is essentially the same as the Word of God in the N.T., ie Jesus!

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

A lot of people say it isn't offensive to talk of God in male pronouns because 'he' is gender neutral. I can see where they're coming from, but this worries me even more. Our society is so deeply patriarchal that people don't even realise that 'he' is not, never has been, never will be and cannot ever become, a gender neutral pronoun.

In a way just saying 'that's how it's always been' betrays something much more entrenched and endemic than deliberately excluding over half of the world's population. It shows that we so used to doing it we don't even notice any more.

That's why I refer to God as 'she'--to try to make people step back and wonder why we never question saying 'he' all the time.

 

[cantata]

A lot of people say it isn't offensive to talk of God in male pronouns because 'he' is gender neutral. I can see where they're coming from, but this worries me even more. Our society is so deeply patriarchal that people don't even realise that 'he' is not, never has been, never will be and cannot ever become, a gender neutral pronoun.

In a way just saying 'that's how it's always been' betrays something much more entrenched and endemic than deliberately excluding over half of the world's population. It shows that we so used to doing it we don't even notice any more.

That's why I refer to God as 'she'--to try to make people step back and wonder why we never question saying 'he' all the time.

QFT!

 

[lawtonfogle]

Is it offensive to refer to God with the feminine pronoun?

[SIZE=-1] God is a Girl

Right now youtube is down though...

Anyways, why not use it? Also, can I use it to refer to people also?
[/SIZE]

 

[True_Blue]

Ebia's point is pretty close to the mark, but not quite there. The deity of God certainly transcends gender. The question to ask is, "What would Jesus do?" The Son of God, Jesus Christ, is definitely male. And Jesus himself referred to God as "God the Father." In fact, he said, "I and the Father are one." Since Jesus the man is male, God the Father is best thought of as male, even though spiritual beings are their own special class. Whenever Jesus used a sex-based term with respect to God, he always used the masculine form. So I answer yes, it is incorrect, and perhaps offensive as well, to refer to God in the feminine form.

 

[AJ29]

I often use "she" to refer to God in the same way that many contemporary philosophers, especially philosophers of ethics, use female examples in their writings: I wish to raise the consciousness of my readers, and I do not want people to think that I am using "he" in a gendered way.

I also like imagining God with some feminine characteristics. It's fun to think about.

I wouldn't recommend changing traditional literature, but I do think referring to God as "she" now and again can be helpful. However, interestingly, some people here who shall not be named seem to regard it as mockery.

I don't take offense, and I don't see it as a mockery, but...

I think of God as "he" and Mother Nature as "she" so I automatically assume that anyone who refers to God as "she" is talking about a pagan god and not the Christian God.

No theological references to back up my "arguement" - thats just how I have interpreted things.

Have you ever heard a Christian refer to God as "she"? (Curious!)

 

[cantata]

I don't take offense, and I don't see it as a mockery, but...

I think of God as "he" and Mother Nature as "she" so I automatically assume that anyone who refers to God as "she" is talking about a pagan god and not the Christian God.

No theological references to back up my "arguement" - thats just how I have interpreted things.

Interesting! I could make some sulky remarks about the pervading association of the feminine with the sinister, but I won't

Have you ever heard a Christian refer to God as "she"? (Curious!)

Yes, I have, although admittedly by Christians who are doing their Christian thing a pretty long way out of the mainstream.

But in any case, when I talk about God, I tend to be referring to any omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being you care to mention. I am not usually talking about Yahweh. I think it's probably reasonable to say that Yahweh's definitely a dude because he has a wife (unless he's a lesbian, I guess, but I doubt that'd be a popular view, exciting though it may be). But since the Christian God, like most gods of monotheistic religions, tends to be thought of as transcending gender, I don't feel so bad about referring to her as "she". I'm sure she has some characteristics ascribed to her which are traditionally feminine - she is supposed to be nurturing, for example. And Luke tells a parable in which a woman actually represents God - the parable of the lost coin. (I like Luke )

And in response to you, True_Blue, while you are within your rights to regard it as incorrect, in what way is it offensive to hear God referred to as "she"?

 

[AJ29]

Interesting! I could make some sulky remarks about the pervading association of the feminine with the sinister, but I won't

You can make what ever remarks you like! Mother Nature isn't always sinister is she?! The sun was shining beautifully here today!

I had never thought about it really. I will listen out from now on and report back to you at a later date!

 

[MoonlessNight]

I am not usually talking about Yahweh. I think it's probably reasonable to say that Yahweh's definitely a dude because he has a wife (unless he's a lesbian, I guess, but I doubt that'd be a popular view, exciting though it may be).

I've never really liked the use of the name Yahweh to seperate from the Biblical God because the old testament both gives us that name for God and also firmly condemns the notion of Asherah (particularly in Kings).

I understand that for scholarly work it can be useful, but it can sometimes come across as insulting (as in a "I know more about your God than you do" sort of thing).

 

[cantata]

You can make what ever remarks you like! Mother Nature isn't always sinister is she?! The sun was shining beautifully here today!

*grin* But she has pagan connotations, which some people regard as inherently sinister.

I had never thought about it really. I will listen out from now on and report back to you at a later date!

Excellent!

I've never really liked the use of the name Yahweh to seperate from the Biblical God because the old testament both gives us that name for God and also firmly condemns the notion of Asherah (particularly in Kings).

I understand that for scholarly work it can be useful, but it can sometimes come across as insulting (as in a "I know more about your God than you do" sort of thing).

I can't help it! I'm a theology student! I can't just ignore relevant non-canonical texts.

It's not intended to be insulting, though; I was just trying to understand why anyone would insist on God being called a he. I was also trying to explain that I am usually referring to any old divine being when I talk about God - not necessarily the God of the Old and New Testaments. Yahweh's the most well-known term for the latter.

 

[kiwimac]

The Bible refers to God being like a mother straining to give birth, refers to God as a mother.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

One way to look at it is to turn the question around: is it wrong/offensive to refer to God exclusively as male? As has been noted by other responders, although some people can see "He" and read it as gender neutral*, others associate such male pronouns with distinctly male characteristics. Therefore, using male language solely creates the impression -- even if "only" subconsciously -- that God is male. I suppose True_Blue, thrusting Christianity forward into the 12th century, would be happy with that, but I think that most theologians agree that God is outside gender. Add in the wider sociological implications of a patriarchal theology (like, giving the distinct message that women are inferior) and I'd say it is indeed wrong to perpetrate the false impression that God is exclusively male. Hence, it is ok -- even beneficial -- to refer to God as female.

Now, all that said, what I wonder about is why the Church hasn't pushed for plural pronoun usage, as is now becoming common in secular contexts. Modern English usage typically allows breaking number agreement to use plural nouns as gender-neutral singular (eg "If any employee has a problem with the new dress code, they may bring their concerns to their supervisor..."). Why not use They for God? I suppose that might raise some theological (Trinity) issues, but it seems like a good compromise, plus having the advantage of being consistent with secular usage. Any thoughts on this?


* But since that's in the context of God, that's usually because they've been raised in that mindset. For someone with a different cultural perspective, that's much more difficult.

 

[True_Blue]

One way to look at it is to turn the question around: is it wrong/offensive to refer to God exclusively as male? As has been noted by other responders, although some people can see "He" and read it as gender neutral*, others associate such male pronouns with distinctly male characteristics. Therefore, using male language solely creates the impression -- even if "only" subconsciously -- that God is male. I suppose True_Blue, thrusting Christianity forward into the 12th century, would be happy with that, but I think that most theologians agree that God is outside gender. Add in the wider sociological implications of a patriarchal theology (like, giving the distinct message that women are inferior) and I'd say it is indeed wrong to perpetrate the false impression that God is exclusively male. Hence, it is ok -- even beneficial -- to refer to God as female.

Now, all that said, what I wonder about is why the Church hasn't pushed for plural pronoun usage, as is now becoming common in secular contexts. Modern English usage typically allows breaking number agreement to use plural nouns as gender-neutral singular (eg "If any employee has a problem with the new dress code, they may bring their concerns to their supervisor..."). Why not use They for God? I suppose that might raise some theological (Trinity) issues, but it seems like a good compromise, plus having the advantage of being consistent with secular usage. Any thoughts on this?

* But since that's in the context of God, that's usually because they've been raised in that mindset. For someone with a different cultural perspective, that's much more difficult.

The problem is that it's very difficult to change language en masse and get the language change adopted by the entire world. Languages actually degrade over time. My wife studied ancient English as applied to the epic poem Beowulf, which is far more complicated and elegant than modern English. We have no masculine or feminine forms for nouns and verbs, and we don't have words for "God" that are male, female, and neuter. If our language allowed it, I would not object to using the neuter form for God and the male form for the Son. Because of the inadequacy of our language, I must oppose efforts to use female descriptors for God. If God's character qualities could be placed on a gender continuum, he would be much closer to the male side than the female side by virtue of Jesus' masculinity.

 

[cantata]

If God's character qualities could be placed on a gender continuum, he would be much closer to the male side than the female side by virtue of Jesus' masculinity.

Do you think the Jesus presented in the gospels is especially masculine? Ignoring the gender bias of the time he lived in for a moment here, could the same role not have been fulfilled by a woman?

That is to say: I see good reasons to have a male messiah if you're going to have them coming to visit humanity in first century Palestine, but in a post-feminist world (which we haven't arrived at yet, by the way), couldn't Jesus just as easily have been a woman?

 

[True_Blue]

Do you think the Jesus presented in the gospels is especially masculine? Ignoring the gender bias of the time he lived in for a moment here, could the same role not have been fulfilled by a woman?

That is to say: I see good reasons to have a male messiah if you're going to have them coming to visit humanity in first century Palestine, but in a post-feminist world (which we haven't arrived at yet, by the way), couldn't Jesus just as easily have been a woman?

This is a very fascinating question you pose. I bounced it off my wife to see what she would say. I guess there's nothing that could have precluded Jesus from coming as a woman. I don't think social structures made a difference to God. He was born to a very poor family. He was born a Jew rather than a Roman. He was a homeless refugee as a little boy. Later he lived in Galilee rather than Jerusalem. He was a carpenter rather than an accredited rabbi. So he had a lot of social barriers against him. For whatever reason, God chose to make him male rather than female, and all we can do is speculate why. I do know that God loves men and women equally, and that the inequality that has persisted between men and women through the ages is the result of sin, not God's design. In Heaven, sexuality will be entirely irrelevant.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Do you think the Jesus presented in the gospels is especially masculine? Ignoring the gender bias of the time he lived in for a moment here, could the same role not have been fulfilled by a woman?

That is to say: I see good reasons to have a male messiah if you're going to have them coming to visit humanity in first century Palestine, but in a post-feminist world (which we haven't arrived at yet, by the way), couldn't Jesus just as easily have been a woman?

Can you imagine a woman of that era taking a whip and overturning tables in the temple and violently driving out the moneychangers?

 

[cantata]

Can you imagine a woman of that era taking a whip and overturning tables in the temple and violently driving out the moneychangers?

No. That's precisely why I said this:

I see good reasons to have a male messiah if you're going to have them coming to visit humanity in first century Palestine, but in a post-feminist world (which we haven't arrived at yet, by the way), couldn't Jesus just as easily have been a woman?

Reading comprehension ftw!

 

[stan1980]

[SIZE=-1] God is a Girl


Right now youtube is down though...

Anyways, why not use it? Also, can I use it to refer to people also?
[/SIZE]

Aggghhhhh... my ears!!

 

[ebia]

Do you think the Jesus presented in the gospels is especially masculine? Ignoring the gender bias of the time he lived in for a moment here, could the same role not have been fulfilled by a woman?

That is to say: I see good reasons to have a male messiah if you're going to have them coming to visit humanity in first century Palestine, but in a post-feminist world (which we haven't arrived at yet, by the way), couldn't Jesus just as easily have been a woman?

I don't think the question is answerable. Jesus didn't just happen to be born in 1st century palestine; Jesus is the culmination of the whole story of Israel, and as such needs to be male because that's how Israel's story is structured. There is no story to point to what he/she would be in a post-feminist world. Jesus human gender was sealed with the birth of Isaac.

 

[cantata]

I don't think the question is answerable. Jesus didn't just happen to be born in 1st century palestine; Jesus is the culmination of the whole story of Israel, and as such needs to be male because that's how Israel's story is structured. There is no story to point to what he/she would be in a post-feminist world. Jesus human gender was sealed with the birth of Isaac.

What about the Second Coming? Might the Messiah be manifested as a lady?