Suppression of the Divine Feminine is primarily caused by grammar!

[Guest guest]

Dear Nicole and all,

 

We urgently need to have more research/quotes to support the Divine

Feminine, especially that related to the Holy Spirit and Comforter.

There is no question that far more can be accomplished by focussing

our attention and energies on these topics, than anything else. There

are many books out there from which we can extract relevant quotes and

synthesize them with Shri Mataji's teachings about Jesus Christ and

the Good News. Shri Mataji's advent and message must be supported

thus, an approach that will eventually work out as more seekers are

enlightened by the Comforter.

 

i believe that the suppression of the Divine Feminine is primarily

caused by grammar, and to a lesser extend a patriarchal clergy. Over

the centuries the damage has been enormous and it is imperative that

we give evidence of that. The two articles below by Scott Ashley:

 

i) Grammar Confuses the Nature of the Holy Spirit

ii) Just What is the Holy Spirit?

 

makes so much sense to those enlightened by the Comforter sent by

Jesus Christ in the name of God Almighty, and the Good News of the

Kingdom of God delivered by Her. Only those who feel the Cool Breeze

of the Holy Ghost as they take part in the Resurrection truly know

the nature of the Holy Spirit. Scott Ashley, like most Christians

(Jews and Muslims), probably have no idea what we talking about and

personally experiencing on a daily basis.

 

The suppression of the Divine Feminine in Christianity (Judaism and

Islam) is primarily caused by grammar, and a patriarchal clergy too.

However for Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikh the scriptures are

grammatically very clear about the Divine Feminine - Adi Shakti,

Great Cosmic Goddess, Mahadevi, Prajnaparamita, Kuan Yin, Shakti,

Durga, Kali, Shakti, Aykaa Mayee and others.

 

regards,

 

jagbir

 

 

Grammar Confuses the Nature of the Holy Spirit

 

Much of the confusion among English-speaking peoples (and in English

translations of the Bible) regarding the nature of the Holy Spirit

centers on the Greek language's use of gender pronouns. Greek, like

the Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian and others), uses a

specific gender for every noun. Every object, animate or inanimate,

is referred to as being either masculine, feminine or neuter.

 

A noun's gender is usually arbitrary and has nothing to do with

whether it in reality refers to something masculine or feminine. For

example, in French a book, livre, is referred to in the masculine

sense, as a " he. " In German, a girl, mädchen, is referred to in the

neuter sense, as an " it. " By contrast, in English, nouns that aren't

specifically masculine or feminine are referred to as " it. "

 

In the New Testament, the words used most often in reference to the

Holy Spirit are a mixture of masculine and neuter. The Greek word

parakletos is translated " Comforter " or " Helper. " The comforter that

Christ promised He would send to the disciples in the 14th, 15th and

16th chapters of John is a masculine word and thus would be referred

to by the pronouns " he, " " him, " " his " and " himself " throughout those

chapters. However, this is strictly a grammatical tool and not a

statement on the nature of the Holy Spirit.

 

The other word used most often of the Holy Spirit is the Greek word

pneuma. It is translated as " breath " or " spirit " and means breath,

breeze, wind or spirit. It is the root of our modern word pneumatic,

meaning pertaining to or operated by air or wind. Pneuma is a

grammatically neuter word and thus should be referred to in English

by such neuter terms as " it, " " its " or " itself. "

 

The translators of the King James Version, influenced by the Trinity

doctrine, generally mistranslated pronouns referring to pneuma as

masculine rather than neuter. There are a few exceptions in the KJV

in which the translation was properly handled, such as Romans

8:16: " The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are

the children of God. "

 

Later English translations of the Bible, following the lead of the

King James Version, translated references to the Holy Spirit as

masculine, thus it is almost always referred to as " he " or " him " in

modern versions.

 

-- Scott Ashley

 

 

Just What is the Holy Spirit?

Is it the third person of the Trinity, or something altogether

different? You might be surprised at what the Bible really says!

by Scott Ashley

 

Exactly who-or what-is the Holy Spirit? Many assume that the Holy

Spirit, along with God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son, form what

is commonly known as the Trinity. This doctrine expresses a belief in

one God who exists in three distinct but equal persons. Is the Holy

Spirit a third divine person, along with God the Father and Jesus

Christ?

 

The word Trinity doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible. It didn't come

into common use as a religious term until after the Council of Nicea

(A.D. 325), several centuries after the last books of the Bible were

completed.

 

A.W. Tozer, in his book The Knowledge of the Holy, writes that the

Trinity is an " incomprehensible mystery, " and that attempts to

understand it " must remain forever futile. " He admits that

churches, " without pretending to understand, " have nevertheless

continued to teach this doctrine. He concludes, " The fact that it

[the Trinity] cannot be satisfactorily explained, instead of being

against it, is in its favor " (Harper & Row, New York, 1961, pp. 17,

18, 23).

 

Unger's Bible Dictionary, in its article on the Trinity, concedes

that the Trinitarian concept is humanly incomprehensible: " It is

admitted by all who thoughtfully deal with this subject that the

Scripture revelation here leads us into the presence of a deep

mystery; and that all human attempts at expression are of necessity

imperfect " (Moody Press, Chicago, 1966, p. 1118).

 

Why is the concept of the Holy Spirit as a third person of a

supposedly triune Godhead, along with God the Father and Jesus

Christ, so difficult to grasp?

 

Because the Bible does not teach it! You cannot prove something from

the Bible that is not biblical. The Bible is our only reliable source

of divine revelation and truth, and the Trinity concept is not part

of God's revelation to humankind.

 

The Holy Spirit-the power of God

The Holy Spirit, rather than being a distinct person, is spoken of in

the Bible as being God's divine power. The Anchor Bible Dictionary,

in its article on the Holy Spirit, describes it as " [t]he

manifestation of divine presence and power perceptible especially in

prophetic inspiration " (Vol. 3, Doubleday, New York, 1992, p. 260).

 

Scripture refers to the Holy Spirit as the power of God (Zechariah

4:6; Micah 3:8). Paul told Timothy that it is the " spirit of ...

power and of love and of a sound mind " (2 Timothy 1:7, emphasis added

throughout).

 

Luke 4:14 records that Jesus Christ began His ministry " in the power

of the Spirit. " Speaking of the Holy Spirit, which would be given to

His followers after His death, Jesus told them, " You shall receive

power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you ... " (Acts 1:8).

 

Peter relates how " God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy

Spirit and with power, [and Jesus] went about doing good and healing

all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him " (Acts

10:38). The Holy Spirit is here associated with the power by which

God was with Him-the power through which Jesus Christ performed

mighty miracles during His earthly, physical ministry. The Holy

Spirit is the very presence of God's power actively working in His

servants.

 

The apostle Paul's desire was that the members of the church in Rome

would " abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit, " in the same

way that Jesus Christ had worked through him " in mighty signs and

wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God " (Romans 15:13, 19).

 

Divine inspiration by the Spirit

Repeatedly the Scriptures reveal that God imparts His divine

inspiration to His prophets and servants through the Holy Spirit.

Peter noted that " prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy

men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit " (2 Peter

1:21).

 

Paul stated that God's plan had been " revealed by the Spirit to His

holy apostles and prophets " (Ephesians 3:5), and that his own

teachings were inspired by the spirit (1 Corinthians 2:13). Paul, in

1 Corinthians 2:9, 10, explains that God through His Spirit has

revealed to us the things which He has prepared for those who love

Him. God the Father is the Revealer, working through His Spirit in

those who serve Him.

 

Jesus Christ told His followers that the Holy Spirit, which the

Father would send to them, " will teach you all things, and bring to

your remembrance all things that I said to you " (John 14:26).

 

It is through God's Spirit within us that we can gain spiritual

understanding and insight. " For what man knoweth the things of a man,

save [through] the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things

of God knoweth no man, but [through] the Spirit of God. Now we have

received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of

God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of

God " (1 Corinthians 2:11, 12).

 

www.gnmagazine.org/

 

, " nicole_bougantouche "

<nicole_bougantouche wrote:

>

> Dear all,

>

> The present post is about the supposed suppressed feminine gender

of one aspect of God in the Bible.

>

> When i googled in search of this topic, i was confronted to the

bulk of articles related to the " Da Vinci Code " . This fiction though

> questionable has yet the merit to unearth the discussion around

this very important issue: Did the Bible suppressed the Divine

Feminine ?

>

> The belief is widely spread that the Christians suppressed the

Divine Feminine from the Bible. It seems that it is not as simple…

>

> When we speak of matriarchal civilizations, we think immediately of

> prehistoric or proto-historic matriarchal civilizations living in a

> kind of Golden Age. The first example that comes in my mind is the

> Minoan civilization on the island of Crete. If you visit the site,

> you will discover a brilliant and prosperous civilization, with all

> kinds of commodities and comfort, worshipping a Goddess, though

ruled by a king, and performing cults revolving around the sacred

Cow.. If we look closer to the site, we see no walls, which means

that this civilization lived in peace and was opened to the world.

>

> As we come closer to us, we are confronted to civilizations such as

> Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. Those brilliant civilizations are

> clearly patriarchal, though they worship goddesses too. But their

> existence depends on wars and conquests. At that time being a woman

> was everything but enviable. The woman was meant for bearing

> children, heirs, pleasing men and were a widely used currency for

> strategic unions. When a civilization lives in peace, the worship

of the Goddess is spontaneous. The cult is meant to show the

gratitude for peace, prosperity, good harvest, etc…. But when war

threats, the man has to take over to protect this hardly gained

balance, even if it chose a Goddess as tutelary divinity, just like

Athens chosed Athena to protect the city. But the warrior Athena

Pallas, is not a mother, She is a Warrior She wears a helmet and a

sword. Nothing to do with Athena Parthenos, the Virgin, though a huge

shrine has been erected for Her : The Parthenon, on the highest point

of the city.

>

> If we look at the roman religion, we see that there is a large

> pantheon with all kind of cults orchestrated according to a precise

> calendar. Those cults are performed as a kind of duty, but there is

> absolutely no " love " involved in those cults. The Gods get their

> proper offerings and cults but are " kindly asked " to live their

> heavenly life and not interfere in the human life. The notion of

> Divine Love is absent.

>

> So the advent of Jesus has something really revolutionary as He

> introduces the notion of Love in the relationships. He has

something very feminine as one of the articles hereafter points it

out (He has feminine friendships, weeps, etc….) Jesus lived in a

very " male " period (Romans and Jews) but He had to speak of Love….

>

> Speaking of Love and preaching Love was something extreme when we

> consider that His audience consisted in warriors and clergymen of

two patriarchal cultures, i.e; Jews and Romans. He could not have

spoken of the Feminine aspect of God directly, so He insisted on the

> Mother : " Behold the Mother …… "

>

> So He said that He would send the Comforter who would remind us

what He told. He knew that when the Time would come His followers

would understand that the Comforter is the Divine Feminine.

>

> Shri Mataji said that Christ could not openly speak about certain

> things, and that She was to explain those things to us, though She

is Herself the Explanation.

>

> So i could conclude that the Bible did not suppress the Divine

> Feminine. And the Christian period contributed to the revival of

the > Divine Feminine in some ways.

>

> Did the Church suppress the Divine Feminine ? They did and still

do whatever is possible to suppress and to silence it. But by doing

> this, they just exacerbate this innate and structural need to re-

> establish the Divine Feminine which lies in our collective

> consciousness.

>

> With Love

> nicole

>

> ******************************************************************

>

>

> www.thoughtsandplaces.org/divinefem.html

> ……

> This is the archetype of the Divine Feminine, one of the basic

truths built into the very depth of our being, according to Jung. In the

Catholic world she again surfaces, as best she can, into yet

another female-limiting, patriarchal world. Vesta, pictured in the first photo

above, was also revered as a representation of the Divine

> Feminine in a(n even more extremely) patriarchal world, the world

of the Pater Familias where the man was expected to be revered by

wife, child and slave, and was undisputed ruler over his household, by virtue of

his maleness. Roman society was a strongly man-centered social system wherein

women lived to serve, and please, and in

order to thrive in this environment emerging Christianity largely

emulated and adopted/adapted Rome's 'family values' with vestiges quite evident

still in all modern societies.

> ……

> This surprising similarity in a web page devoted to an ancient

> goddess and a Jungian's modern interpretation of the ill effects

that come from rejecting the role of the feminine principle in what is

considered Divine reinforces for me that there is no need for the

> historically continuous threads that people claim must have existed

> for the transmission of the ideas and ideals that swirl around the

> Divine Feminine. Perhaps the connection lies in our collective

> unconscious, and simply reflects the resurfacing at different times

> and places of the same suppressed archetypes with which all

humanity has been born since the beginning of our species!

>

>

> www.beliefnet.com/story_18752_1.html

>

> What we're talking about when we talk about the feminine divine in

> Christianity By Rosemary Radford Ruether

>

> It has become a kind of dogma among many feminists interested in

> spirituality that Judaism and Christianity suppressed all female

> imagery of the divine. It is also assumed that it was women who

> created female symbols of the divine and that these symbols served

to empower women. So, this line of thinking goes, female symbols for

the divine were suppressed as a part of a patriarchal disempowerment of women.

However, my own research, published in my book, " Goddesses

and the Divine Feminine: A Western Religious History " shows that all

> these relations are considerably more ambiguous.

>

> Men, more so than women, probably shaped much of the classical

images of the female divine in the ancient Mediterranean world and

> elsewhere. Such images served male and upper class interests, at

> least in their official expressions The feminine divine was seen as

> protecting men in power, probably because they were believed to be

> protecting men, like a great mother whose power is seen as

nurturing rather than judgemental.

>

> But in truth, female symbols of the divine were never entirely

> suppressed in Judaism or Christianity. Although they were

> marginalized, they continued to reappear in renewed forms--and are

> still with us today.

>

> The root of female images of the divine in Christianity lie in

what's known as the Wisdom tradition, which is found in the latter half of the

Hebrew Bible, in such books as Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiasticus, and the Wisdom of

Solomon. In those texts, Wisdom is described as a emanation of God: " Like a fine

mist she rises from the power of God, a pure effluence from the glory of God...

the brightness that streams from everlasting light, the flawless mirror of the

active power of God and the image of his goodness " (Wisdom of Solomon, 7:25-26).

Wisdom is seen as a companion of God through whom God creates the world, an

orderer and sustainer of the universe, a mediator of divine revelation, the one

who calls Israel's sons to repent of their folly and enter the study of wisdom.

She is the means of good fortune, the bride of sages and the redeemer of souls.

" Age after age she enters into holy souls and makes them God's friends and

prophets " (Wisdom of Solomon, 7:27).

>

> Wisdom as a feminine aspect of God was developed by scholar-sages

in

> Jerusalem after the return from exile in the late sixth century

> B.C.E. Earlier Judaism had known of the Goddess Asherah, wife of

the Canaanite God El. Since the Hebrew religion identified Yahweh--God--with El,

much popular Judaism before the exile continued to assume that Yahweh had a

consort, Asherah. Although the reformers of the tradition gradually suppressed

this veneration of Asherah, a

> lingering memory of this tradition may have influenced the scholar-

> sages may as they shaped the idea of Wisdom as a feminine

> manifestation of God. Later Jewish mysticism would speak of the

> Shekinah (a term used to refer to the Presence of God) as the

> feminine consort of the male God.

>

> Christianity shaped its understanding of who Jesus is through a

> synthesis of the two traditions of apocalyptic messianism--a belief

> in an imminently coming Messiah----and wisdom cosmology, the belief

> in Wisdom as creator of the cosmos. Significant ideas in our

> understanding of Christ--such as the preexistence of Christ as

divine Word with God, the shaping of the creation through the Word, and its role

as sustainer and redeemer of the universe and revealer of God's truth (Gospel of

John 1:1-18)--all developed through the Wisdom tradition. Jesus is variously

seen as a prophet of Wisdom, Wisdom's son, or Wisdom's incarnation. The New

Testament preserves some references to the feminine personification of Wisdom

manifest in

> Jesus, such as " Wisdom is justified by her deeds " and " Wisdom is

> justified by all her children. " (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:35). But as

> the faith developed, the idea of Word (Logos, a male concept)

started to be substituted for Wisdom (Sophia, the female concept). Word was

identified with Jesus,a male prophet, tending to mask the feminine roots of the

Wisdom idea in Western Christianity.

>

> Eastern Christianity continued to place an emphasis on Wisdom,

which is identified with Christ or Mary Theotokos (the Mother of God), Mother

Church, or even as the sustaining ground of Being of the

> Trinity. This emphasis is clear in the name of the great mother

> church of Eastern Orthodoxy in Constantinople: Hagia Sophia, which

is Greek for Holy Wisdom.

> Wwwcreationontheweb.com/content/view/5913

>

> What's in a pronoun? The divine gender controversy

> by Lita Cosner

> A recent UK Times story1reported on a Populus survey conducted for

> the Movement for Reform Judaism, saying that `[nearly] three

quarters of Christians think that God is male, compared with less than half of

the general population.'

> However, the newspaper report was slightly misleading, as the

wording in the actual poll asks simply how the respondents had thought about God

most recently. And the only way they were able to get `less than half of the

general population' not believing in a solely male God was to exclude the

religious from the general population (62% of respondents last thought of God as

male, compared with 73% of Christians and 48% of those who did not consider

themselves to belong to any religion). Only 1% of respondents thought of God as

female, the rest being divided between both male and female, neither, or `none

of the above' (the latter category left undefined—perhaps for the best!).

> The radical feminist assault on Christianity

> Many feminist writers and theologians claim that the concept of a

> male God is rooted in a patriarchal culture which by its very

nature is oppressive to women, and that the Bible contains a female

> portrayal of God's nature that has been suppressed by the Church.2

> Having moved past this `archaic' and `misogynistic' view of women,

> they argue that society should accordingly revise its view of God

to

> include the female characteristics they claim are found both in

> Scripture and Jewish and Church tradition.

> Christians believe that it is only possible to know the information

> about God that He reveals to us Himself through Scripture. Of

course, God is Spirit (John 4:24), so is biologically neither male nor female,

and He does not have a sexual nature. Rita Gross objects:

`If we do not mean that God is male when we use masculine pronouns and imagery,

then why should there be any objections to using female

> imagery and pronouns as well.'3 The simple answer is that God is

> described in male terms because that best describes how God relates

> to His creation; God has revealed Himself to humanity in male

terms;

> and God became incarnate as a man, not a woman.

> Does the Bible use female imagery to refer to God?

> Some feminist theologians and writers claim that Scripture contains

> feminine or maternal imagery as well as masculine imagery. Some of

> this is simply linguistic gender; both Hebrew and Greek, like

French and Spanish, use gender for nouns. The words for `spirit (ruach) and

wisdom (hokma) take the feminine gender in Hebrew. However, this does not make

them intrinsically feminine any more than truth or sin, both of which take the

feminine article in Greek (aletheia and hamartia).4 Furthermore, when ruach is

used for the Spirit of God, it is always combined with the masculine Elohim and

takes on its masculine characteristics. E.g. in 1 Kings 22:24: `Which way did

the Spirit of the Lord go …?', the word ruach makes the masculine verb abar:

`went'.5

> Another type of instance that is claimed as evidence of God being

> described in feminine terms is in similes and metaphors. However,

> similes and metaphors always are comparing attributes of one thing

> with attributes of another they never mean that one thing is

> literally the other thing. When Deuteronomy 32:4 calls God a rock,

we

> do not ask `Granite or limestone?' because we correctly understand

it

> to be non-literal. The same principle applies a few verses later

when

> God is compared to an eagle who protects its young (32:11). It is

> ridiculous to infer from the imagery that God is female; it would

be

> just as justified in the context to assume that this verse teaches

> that God has feathers and wings! This is not even simply a question

> of bad hermeneutics (which it is), but of poor basic reading

> comprehension, whether intentional or not, on the part of these

> scholars.

> Male imagery referring to God

> The male imagery used to depict God is fundamentally different from

> the female similes found in Scripture. God may be like a mother in

> certain aspects, but He is Father; Jesus prayed to Him as Father

and

> taught His disciples to do the same (Matt 6:9). The Second Person

of

> the Trinity, Jesus Christ, became incarnate as a man, not a woman,

> and Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit with the pronoun `He' (John

> 14:16–17). These are not similes or metaphors, but teaching

regarding

> the very nature of God and how He relates to His creation, and how

> the members of the Godhead relate to each other.

> Was male imagery and Incarnation a concession to a patriarchal

> culture?

> The male imagery used to depict God is fundamentally different from

> the female similes found in Scripture. God may be like a mother in

> certain aspects, but He is Father; Jesus prayed to Him as Father

and

> taught His disciples to do the same (Matt 6:9).

> Some scholars admit that the Bible depicts God in male terms, but

> argue that it was simply because the patriarchal culture would not

> accept a female God. Some go so far as to argue that the only

reason

> that Jesus couldn't have been a female is because the culture was

not

> ready for a female Messiah. However, much of this so-called

> patriarchy is contained in the Mosaic Law, which God gave to

Israel!

> God could have revealed Himself in female terms if it was an

accurate

> portrayal of His nature, and He could have prepared the culture for

a

> female Messiah. On a similar note, it is also claimed that the only

> reason Jesus had to be male was that a female would not be accepted

> as a teacher in first century Palestine.

> It is not even clear if the culture was as patriarchal as is

claimed;

> many ancient cultures worshipped goddesses (see, e.g., Acts 19:27–

28)

> and Paul even had to straighten out the Corinthians about women's

> proper place in church services (1 Corinthians 14:33–38). What Paul

> meant when he forbade women to have authority over men (1 Timothy

> 2:12) is debated (and outside the mandate of CMI), but it seems

> unlikely that he would have addressed it at all if it weren't an

> issue in his day.

> This objection is absurd even on the face of it—the Prophets and

> Jesus themselves frequently challenged the culture of their day,

> where it didn't match God's standards. Indeed, humanly speaking,

> Jesus' enemies wouldn't have bothered to criticize Him if he had

not

> been a staunch critic of much of the culture, even using challenge-

> riposte in His critique.

> Some go so far as to claim that Jesus was either genetically or

> psychologically female; since Jesus did not have a human father,

the

> argument goes, all His genetic material came from Mary. Since Mary

> did not have a Y chromosome, Jesus must have been genetically

female,

> though male in appearance. It should be obvious that, though

natural

> parthenogenic offspring are the same sex as the parent, the case of

> Jesus was a supernatural virginal conception, and the God who

created

> the universe surely would have no problem in creating a Y

chromosome.

> Some have the good sense to accept that Jesus was physically male,

> but claim that He had female psychological characteristics, or that

> he behaved in female ways: He loved children, had special

friendships

> with women, and wept. However, none of these are especially

feminine

> characteristics. There was no taboo for males displaying emotion in

> public; in some cases, it would be expected of them. People

claiming

> Jesus displayed female psychology nearly always cite Matthew 23:37

or

> the parallel passage Luke 13:34: `O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who

> kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have

> longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her

chicks

> under her wings, but you were not willing.' This is a simile, like

> the examples above, and the scholars who infer female psychology

from

> this passage might as well say that Jesus had some aspects of

chicken

> psychology, as well!6

> The Bible has an overwhelming emphasis that the Saviour of humanity

> would not only be both God and human, but a male human. Indeed, the

> first prophecy about Jesus in the Bible, Protevangelion of Genesis

> 3:15, specified that it would be a male descendent who would crush

> the head of the serpent, and Eve understood the prophecy to refer

to

> a male when she misapplied it to Cain in Genesis 4:1 (see `Eve and

> the God-Man'). God declares Jesus to be His beloved Son (Matthew

> 3:17, 17:5), not daughter, and He is called High Priest (Hebrews

> 2:17), not priestess. In Revelation, Jesus is the Bridegroom of the

> Church (ch. 21). The overwhelming presence of male imagery applied

to

> Jesus from Genesis to Revelation strongly suggests that the

Messiah's

> maleness was no accident or concession to culture, but central to

His

> nature and mission.

> The relational maleness of God

> Identifying God in female terms leads to a fundamental change in

how

> God is viewed:

> He is no longer Lord over the world, but a mother birthing it. He

is

> no longer king over his realm, but the world is actually part of

his

> (her?) body. It seems that the evangelicals who wish to simply add

> mother to the list of names for God in the Scriptures, have no way

of

> preventing this kind of revision of the way in which God relates to

> the world. Once the authority of scripture is given up with regard

to

> the name (mother), there is no authority to which they may appeal

to

> argue against the natural revisions of the God-world relationship

> associated with feminine language.7

> The Bible is clear about the `otherness' of God; the creation

> narrative in Genesis clearly illustrates that God existed before

the

> creation and is completely separate from it. Those who identify God

> in female terms have no way to prevent this fundamental change in

the

> view of God where the creation becomes part of God (panentheism),

and

> thus in some way humanity becomes divine in this view as well.

> The way that God relates to His creation corresponds with male

roles;

> He is Father, King, and Master. There is no way to diminish the

> maleness of these roles without diminishing our view of the nature

of

> God Himself.

> Is it anti-female to refer to God with male pronouns?

> A truly biblical understanding of God is far from anti-female,

> because both male and female are created in the image of God

(Genesis

> 1:26–28). Some imagery used in the Bible may even be easier for

> females to understand and relate to; e.g. the Church as the bride

of

> Christ (Ephesians 5:22–33, Revelation 21:9,17).

> If we refer to humans by the names, and even with the pronouns,

that

> they wish to be known by, it seems to be common courtesy to do the

> same for God. If God reveals Himself as Father, King, Lord, etc, it

> seems obscene to insist on calling Him Mother, Goddess, etc.

> The issue is: who defines how we relate to God: us or God? If we

> refer to humans by the names, and even with the pronouns, that they

> wish to be known by, it seems to be common courtesy to do the same

> for God. If God reveals Himself as Father, King, Lord, etc, it

seems

> obscene to insist on calling Him Mother, Goddess, etc. As Michael

> Bott argued, `respecting the requested manner of address is good

> manners at least. So we call God our " Father " because to do

otherwise

> is simply rude.'8 Furthermore, in the Bible naming someone or

> something symbolized authority over that person. As Roland Mushat

> Frye put it:

> Language for God is not equivalent to the kinds of naming we use in

> ordinary speech. … [W]e recognize that ordinary names for creatures

> are subject to human custom, choice, and change. According to

> biblical religion, on the other hand, only God can name God.

> Distinctive Christian experiences and beliefs are expressed through

> distinctive language about God, and the changes in that language

> proposed by feminist theologians do not merely add a few unfamiliar

> words for God … but in fact introduce beliefs about God that differ

> radically from those inherent in Christian faith, understanding and

> Scripture.9

> Does secularism have anything better to offer?

> Early Christianity and ancient Judaism before it were both light-

> years ahead of their cultures regarding the treatment of women. The

> Mosaic law was very pro-woman; it was the first ancient law to

punish

> both parties of adultery equally (Leviticus 20:10) whereas in other

> cultures of that time only the woman was culpable, and it has been

> argued that the birth impurity laws (Leviticus 12), so vilified by

> modern feminists, amounted to a maternity leave for new mothers

since

> they could not do household work while they were unclean. The

Mosaic

> law also provided for a woman who was raped by forcing the rapist

to

> support her for the rest of her life, and forced Jewish men to

treat

> females of conquered people with dignity. Jewish daughters could

even

> inherit property when there were no sons. While some of the laws

may

> seem misogynist in the 21st century Western world, such laws were

> vital for the well-being of women in the ancient world.10

> Paul's statements commanding women to be silent and forbidding them

> to have authority in the Church have given him an anti-female

> reputation, but he also wrote that `There is neither Jew nor Greek,

> slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ

Jesus'

> (Galatians 3:28). The Church provided for elderly widows with no

> family to take care of them (1 Timothy 5:9–16). Outside the Church,

> in the prevailing culture of the day, it was not uncommon for baby

> girls to be exposed and left to die soon after birth; both

> Christianity and Judaism regarded this as an abomination.

> The same hermeneutic that allows exegetes to replace `Father, Son

and

> Holy Spirit' with `Mother, Daughter, and Life-bearing Womb' would

> also free humans to reinterpret any part of Scripture to fit with

the

> spirit of the age—including the many explicit pro-female parts! If

we

> are free to redefine even one word of Scripture, not one word of it

> is unchangeable.

> On the other hand; secularists have been shown to be anti-female.

> Many evolutionists, including Darwin, have argued that women are

> inferior to men, since the weaker men are eliminated by war and

other

> things, but weaker women are not eliminated by such forces—instead,

> men protect weak women. Thus the male population is worked on by

> natural selection where only the strongest survive, but the women

who

> men find attractive, not necessarily the strongest or most `fit',

> reproduce. One evolutionist even argued that females were closer to

> animals than to males. Indeed, sexual equality would be totally

> unexpected under consistent evolutionary theory, since males and

> females throughout the biosphere experienced different selective

> pressures.

> Abortion, advocated by secularists as a fundamental women's right,

> results in far more dead baby girls than boys, and has horrendous

> psychological consequences for the mother, while allowing fathers

> reduced responsibility for promiscuous behaviour. And of course,

> abortion kills babies, which is by far the most important reason

why

> it's evil.

> That Christians with a biblical view of God insist on calling

> Him by the male names He has given Himself in no way reflects

> negatively on the biblical view of women, because both men and

women

> are created in the image of God. Because of this, Christians are

> commanded to treat both men and women with proper dignity and

> respect. Replacing biblical language for God with unbiblical female

> names and terminology does not elevate women, but is an attempt to

> redefine God Himself. The same hermeneutic that allows exegetes to

> replace `Father, Son and Holy Spirit' with `Mother, Daughter, and

> Life-bearing Womb' would also free humans to reinterpret any part

of

> Scripture to fit with the spirit of the age—including the many

parts

> of the Bible which are explicitly pro-female! If we are free to

> redefine even one word of Scripture, not one word of it is

> unchangeable.

> References

> 1. `God moves in a gender neutral way', The Times 19 May 2008,

> p. 25. Return to text.

> 2. For some answers to these fallacious claims, see Wieland, C.,

> The follies of feminism, Prayer News, August 1991. Return to text.

> 3. Gross, R, `Female God language in a Jewish Context';

> Womanspirit rising: a feminist reader in religion, p. 173, cited in

> Bott, M. `Is God She?' Apologia 5(2):5–20. p 9. Return to text.

> 4. Jeffrey, D.L. `Inclusive Language and Worship: The Central

> Role of Language in Defining the People of God' Return to text.

> 5. Taylor, C.V., Linguistics, Genesis and Evolution, Part 5: The

> Creator, Creation 7(4):21–22, 1985. Return to text.

> 6. Cottrell, J. `The Gender of Jesus and the Incarnation: A Case

> Study of Feminist Hermeneutics'. Return to text.

> 7. Stinson, R, `Our Mother Who Art in Heaven: A Brief Overview

> and Critique of Evangelical Feminists and the Use of Feminine God-

> Language'. Return to text.

> 8. Bott. M. `Is God She?' Apologia 5(2):5–20, p. 11–12. Return

> to text.

> 9. House, H.W. `God, Gender, and Biblical Metaphor' (Ch. 17) by

> Judy L. Brown' Return to text.

> 10. See Glenn Miller's series, Women in the Heart of God. Return

> to text.

> Published: 20 August 2008(GMT+10)

>