A couple of weeks ago, CBMW (a complementarian advocacy organization) took a pot-shot at Beth Allison Barr because her husband is pastor of a church where the church’s statement of faith referred to God as “Godself” at one point (although it was later changed).
Mike thanks for this. I think that these ideas make sense. I would add - as the product of two generations of female-headed households (grandmother and mother) - that I found the notion of F/fatherhood quite complex (having no positive resonances in my lived experience) until my early forties. This was true after wars for many children (no longer as true today with the indiscriminate killing of civilian populations). To "exposit" texts by reaching into my experience to explore Fatherhood makes no sense to me. However this method is pervasive in most male preachers, almost without exception. A nuclear family "background" often assumed and projected as "normal". This always makes sermons about Jesus at 12 in the Temple - which is a Father narrative - as mainly about regular trips to Jerusalem - think church picnic. Actually, for me, it is about Jesus' initiation into the temple context! (Is that where he swapped numbers with Nicodemus?). I hope this is helpful to some readers. On another aspect: "Godself" is an awkward construct. I don't know a simple way of dealing with this in contexts like websites and summaries of faith. I do want to honour the intentions of all who seek to open their doors was wide as possible.
Excellent points, Mike. If you or your readers have not yet read Discovering Biblical Equality: Biblical, Theological, Cultural, and Practical Perspectives, 3rd ed. I highly recommend it. Christa McKirland's essay on gender essentialism is especially good as is Ronald W. Pierce and Erin M. Heim's on the use of gendered language and God. Some slices from several chapters are here: https://bit.ly/3IcMAek
Great discussion and response Mike. I would also add that the church, when described, is inherently female. The bride of Christ therefore should be unpatriarchal in her nature; she has no penis for example. So on one level the maleness of God is completely irrelevant. It should also be noted scripture does allude to the fact that in Christ there is no male or female. It should also be noted God did not create ladies. He created woman. There are no ladies in the Bible and no exhortations to be nice.
The femaleness of the church is far more relevant. I am being a little tongue in cheek but at the same time, God is not a man. And this needs to be shouted loudly from every pulpit and rooftop anywhere and everywhere. God is three persons however, so one could say God is as much male as female and also non-binary in nature.
Why? Why are we still so literal in our thinking about the mysterious Love behind everything?.My experiences of God do not feel male or female! They are beyond mere biological identity. I do call God Father and Lord though, as much out of social conditioning and habit as anything but do not think it matters, unless people dogmatically tell me otherwise. I don't have to be right on this, but no one does.
Under your first point you seem to suggest that what is predicated of God analogically doesn’t pertain to God himself, which is a mistake (goodness, wisdom, and various other attributes are predicated of God analogically and pertain to God himself). In addition, in the same point, you’ve explained fatherhood by speaking of divine sovereignty and our adoption. But God is antecedently Father in relation to the eternal Son. None of that leads to a description of God as biologically male (for God in his divine essence is incorporeal), but such things have to be taken into account if we’re going to handle this discussion well.
FTR, for those who don't bother following the links, CBMW's article does not have Barr's church as its primary focus. And it does note that the "Godself' language was later removed, and quoted the explanatory note from Pastor Barr. But CBMW still found fault with the theology implied in the explanation, and with the church for ever even being open to the "Godself" language.
The CBMW article also cites, and links to, a CBE article that place high in a CBE writing contest. The substance of the CBE article involves the author's referring to God as "She." While I fully agree that "feminine" references to God are under-emphasized, I believe referring to God as "She" goes way too far. If CBE is looking for ways to turn allies into enemies, that's a good start.
Hiya. I find the objection to God as 'she' fascinating because what you're essentially objecting to is a pronoun. A pronoun now often attributed to the Holy Spirit - I assume you are familiar with The Shack, which popularised this. And if we spoke German we may call the Holy Spirit 'es' which is it to denote a neuter position. For me God has to be more than male or female and at the same time male and female are part of the very essence of God. Let's remember that Genesis 1 is a poem rather than a theological tract. And let's also remember the context of Jesus's ministry. Calling God 'Father' in a patriarchal society was logical, even if it was considered blasphemy by the ruling religious elites. And so if we decide that the maleness of the Trinity is essential to God three-in-one then we're missing out on the fullness of who God is, in all mystery and power.
1) I have heard of "The Shack," but I am not at all "familiar" with it. I have never heard the Holy Spirit called "She."
2) If you had said Gen. 1 (and 2) are not natural science texts, I would agree. I cannot agree about the "theology" part if you mean there is no intent to convey theological messages.
3) I understand it was a patriarchal culture, and that we can't assume that culture was ever intended to be universally normative. I have some sympathies for a "trajectory" hermeneutic that shows some things have become more permissible with the change of Covenants, while others have remained the same or tightened. I'm sorry, but I have seen no justification for regarding God as "Mother" or "She Who must be Obeyed," so to speak.
That's OK. I don't either but more out of conditioning than anything else. I find it interesting you need to find 'justification' to do it though because the whole banging on about 'personal relationships with Jesus' thing to me is that we come to God as we are, vulnerable, sinful, broken, hiding lots of things, and that we relate to God as we do personally. I would imagine the way you pray, the songs you sing (if you sing) in worship, the way you read the bible, the time you spend on these things, would be very different to mine and you wouldn't necessarily be able to justify them all from scripture. But you do them anyway. Because it's how you come to God.
Point 3 leads me to note this: By my count, "ezer" occurs 20 times in Scripture. Fourteen of those are positive and refer to God. Four refer to humans and are negative in that they refer to "help" that will be absent or inadequate. Two are positive and refer to Eve.
Point 4 leads me to note that in Gen. 1, "ruling" and "subduing," as well as bearing the Image of God, apply equally to male and female.
Hi Mike. Although I tend to agree with your views on this, one wonders why there seems to be so much angst against 'Father' or 'Him'. 'He' did, after all, choose to reveal Himself in this way. He presumably could have chosen to reveal Himself differently? And I speak as someone who did not have a very good relationship with my own father. I quite enjoy calling God, 'Father'. There is a definite intimacy involved.
Secondly, I thought that given the Son became a male human being, and as far as I understand, continues to be the man/God into eternity (pl correct me if you think Im wrong), then in a very real sense, God IS male?
No. You miss the entire historical context that these were patriarchal societies. God as female would not even have been recognised as God within their own contexts. God meets us where we are. God is not male. And how, if God is male, do you even begin to reconcile Paul's conversation in Galatians 3, "In Christ there is no male or female." No male in Christ. No male in Christ. No male in Christ. Go ponder.
'In Christ there is no male or female' refers to there being no discrimination - if you are a child of God, then you are a child of God regardless of your gender, ethnicity etc. It seems you chose not to quote the full sentence 'There is neither Jew nor Gentile...' to twist Paul's obvious meaning.
Regarding cultural background, are you really saying that the culture dictated to the Creator of the universe how He chose to reveal Himself?
And my point remains, the Son of God remains the Son of God.
I haven't twisted, but taken one element to really ask, I guess, you to consider how you feel about that idea. There's no gender and no identity in Christ but Christ himself. It's why I find these arguments about the ID of God a little turgid because to me it doesn't matter, and all I really want to do is get people to see more in God than they currently do. And yes, I definitely do think that culture did dictate to the Creator how he chose to reveal himself. Otherwise why didn't slavery get abolished until the 19th century, for example? God moves in his own time, for his own purposes and totally uses cultural context all the time.
How dare you make so much sense.
Mike thanks for this. I think that these ideas make sense. I would add - as the product of two generations of female-headed households (grandmother and mother) - that I found the notion of F/fatherhood quite complex (having no positive resonances in my lived experience) until my early forties. This was true after wars for many children (no longer as true today with the indiscriminate killing of civilian populations). To "exposit" texts by reaching into my experience to explore Fatherhood makes no sense to me. However this method is pervasive in most male preachers, almost without exception. A nuclear family "background" often assumed and projected as "normal". This always makes sermons about Jesus at 12 in the Temple - which is a Father narrative - as mainly about regular trips to Jerusalem - think church picnic. Actually, for me, it is about Jesus' initiation into the temple context! (Is that where he swapped numbers with Nicodemus?). I hope this is helpful to some readers. On another aspect: "Godself" is an awkward construct. I don't know a simple way of dealing with this in contexts like websites and summaries of faith. I do want to honour the intentions of all who seek to open their doors was wide as possible.
Excellent points, Mike. If you or your readers have not yet read Discovering Biblical Equality: Biblical, Theological, Cultural, and Practical Perspectives, 3rd ed. I highly recommend it. Christa McKirland's essay on gender essentialism is especially good as is Ronald W. Pierce and Erin M. Heim's on the use of gendered language and God. Some slices from several chapters are here: https://bit.ly/3IcMAek
Planning to get that for myself for Christmas. A bit pricier than the previous edition.
Great discussion and response Mike. I would also add that the church, when described, is inherently female. The bride of Christ therefore should be unpatriarchal in her nature; she has no penis for example. So on one level the maleness of God is completely irrelevant. It should also be noted scripture does allude to the fact that in Christ there is no male or female. It should also be noted God did not create ladies. He created woman. There are no ladies in the Bible and no exhortations to be nice.
The femaleness of the church is far more relevant. I am being a little tongue in cheek but at the same time, God is not a man. And this needs to be shouted loudly from every pulpit and rooftop anywhere and everywhere. God is three persons however, so one could say God is as much male as female and also non-binary in nature.
Well if you're going to use the Trinity for support, God is at least 2/3 male.
Why? Why are we still so literal in our thinking about the mysterious Love behind everything?.My experiences of God do not feel male or female! They are beyond mere biological identity. I do call God Father and Lord though, as much out of social conditioning and habit as anything but do not think it matters, unless people dogmatically tell me otherwise. I don't have to be right on this, but no one does.
I should have included a ;-) in that particular reply.
Under your first point you seem to suggest that what is predicated of God analogically doesn’t pertain to God himself, which is a mistake (goodness, wisdom, and various other attributes are predicated of God analogically and pertain to God himself). In addition, in the same point, you’ve explained fatherhood by speaking of divine sovereignty and our adoption. But God is antecedently Father in relation to the eternal Son. None of that leads to a description of God as biologically male (for God in his divine essence is incorporeal), but such things have to be taken into account if we’re going to handle this discussion well.
-Steve Duby
FTR, for those who don't bother following the links, CBMW's article does not have Barr's church as its primary focus. And it does note that the "Godself' language was later removed, and quoted the explanatory note from Pastor Barr. But CBMW still found fault with the theology implied in the explanation, and with the church for ever even being open to the "Godself" language.
The CBMW article also cites, and links to, a CBE article that place high in a CBE writing contest. The substance of the CBE article involves the author's referring to God as "She." While I fully agree that "feminine" references to God are under-emphasized, I believe referring to God as "She" goes way too far. If CBE is looking for ways to turn allies into enemies, that's a good start.
Hiya. I find the objection to God as 'she' fascinating because what you're essentially objecting to is a pronoun. A pronoun now often attributed to the Holy Spirit - I assume you are familiar with The Shack, which popularised this. And if we spoke German we may call the Holy Spirit 'es' which is it to denote a neuter position. For me God has to be more than male or female and at the same time male and female are part of the very essence of God. Let's remember that Genesis 1 is a poem rather than a theological tract. And let's also remember the context of Jesus's ministry. Calling God 'Father' in a patriarchal society was logical, even if it was considered blasphemy by the ruling religious elites. And so if we decide that the maleness of the Trinity is essential to God three-in-one then we're missing out on the fullness of who God is, in all mystery and power.
1) I have heard of "The Shack," but I am not at all "familiar" with it. I have never heard the Holy Spirit called "She."
2) If you had said Gen. 1 (and 2) are not natural science texts, I would agree. I cannot agree about the "theology" part if you mean there is no intent to convey theological messages.
3) I understand it was a patriarchal culture, and that we can't assume that culture was ever intended to be universally normative. I have some sympathies for a "trajectory" hermeneutic that shows some things have become more permissible with the change of Covenants, while others have remained the same or tightened. I'm sorry, but I have seen no justification for regarding God as "Mother" or "She Who must be Obeyed," so to speak.
That's OK. I don't either but more out of conditioning than anything else. I find it interesting you need to find 'justification' to do it though because the whole banging on about 'personal relationships with Jesus' thing to me is that we come to God as we are, vulnerable, sinful, broken, hiding lots of things, and that we relate to God as we do personally. I would imagine the way you pray, the songs you sing (if you sing) in worship, the way you read the bible, the time you spend on these things, would be very different to mine and you wouldn't necessarily be able to justify them all from scripture. But you do them anyway. Because it's how you come to God.
Point 3 leads me to note this: By my count, "ezer" occurs 20 times in Scripture. Fourteen of those are positive and refer to God. Four refer to humans and are negative in that they refer to "help" that will be absent or inadequate. Two are positive and refer to Eve.
Point 4 leads me to note that in Gen. 1, "ruling" and "subduing," as well as bearing the Image of God, apply equally to male and female.
Hi Mike. Although I tend to agree with your views on this, one wonders why there seems to be so much angst against 'Father' or 'Him'. 'He' did, after all, choose to reveal Himself in this way. He presumably could have chosen to reveal Himself differently? And I speak as someone who did not have a very good relationship with my own father. I quite enjoy calling God, 'Father'. There is a definite intimacy involved.
Secondly, I thought that given the Son became a male human being, and as far as I understand, continues to be the man/God into eternity (pl correct me if you think Im wrong), then in a very real sense, God IS male?
Peter
No. You miss the entire historical context that these were patriarchal societies. God as female would not even have been recognised as God within their own contexts. God meets us where we are. God is not male. And how, if God is male, do you even begin to reconcile Paul's conversation in Galatians 3, "In Christ there is no male or female." No male in Christ. No male in Christ. No male in Christ. Go ponder.
'In Christ there is no male or female' refers to there being no discrimination - if you are a child of God, then you are a child of God regardless of your gender, ethnicity etc. It seems you chose not to quote the full sentence 'There is neither Jew nor Gentile...' to twist Paul's obvious meaning.
Regarding cultural background, are you really saying that the culture dictated to the Creator of the universe how He chose to reveal Himself?
And my point remains, the Son of God remains the Son of God.
I haven't twisted, but taken one element to really ask, I guess, you to consider how you feel about that idea. There's no gender and no identity in Christ but Christ himself. It's why I find these arguments about the ID of God a little turgid because to me it doesn't matter, and all I really want to do is get people to see more in God than they currently do. And yes, I definitely do think that culture did dictate to the Creator how he chose to reveal himself. Otherwise why didn't slavery get abolished until the 19th century, for example? God moves in his own time, for his own purposes and totally uses cultural context all the time.