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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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