the divine feminine
Traditionally Christians speak of "God" in the masculine and consider feminine references to lean toward Paganism or Goddess worship (aka Ishtar and company) and hence a charge of being syncretistic or heretical. Pagans and many spiritual seekers understand Christians to worship a male God. Moving beyond that...
Where do my fellow emergents stand on 1) women and leadership in church and 2) language usage arising from the notion of humans as image of Godself and hence becoming comfortable with reference to Godself in the feminine - Goddess and She?
I've recently posted an article on language usage with reference to "God" at timvictor.wordpress.com and welcome some comments there.
- envoy's blog
- 678 reads
Stay updated
Who's been visiting?
Poll
Recent blog posts
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 37 guests online.
Comments
It's a girl! wait, it's a boy! Actually who cares what it is...
As I spend time chatting to those around me, both within the church and out, feminism always seems to come up. I've heard many many many (and again) many different arguments as to why they should be apart of the leadership and as to why they shouldn't be apart.
I'd prefer to remain neutral and share that I feel both the complementarians and egalitarians have great arguments. But this is the same with regards to most theological arguments... We're all confused and don't really have a "right" answer. As long as we serve a paradoxical God, then I think this will always be the case.
I will state however, that there does seem to be sufficient evidence supporting the feminist characteristics of God. For this very reason then, I have no issue in referring to God as my mother. One of my lecturers shared that the Holy Spirit, within the Hebrew writings had a female nature. When these writings were translated into Greek, it then became a neutral sex. It then finally changed into a male nature once it was translated into Latin and then into English. He then pointed out that the female Holy Spirit creates a whole new image of the trinity. We could then say that we have the Father, the Mother and the Son, thereby displaying the perfect family.
A great bit of reading which I could suggest is Dan Kimball's book, "They love Jesus but not the church" as this clearly does seem to be an issue of importance amongst the emerging generation...
still an issue???
The answer is yes, this seem to remain an issue. Within emerging conversations, or wherever you go in the church, basically. OK, so a few thoughts.
Feminine language of God.
I'm not going to go into deep exegesis for the moment. But a few comments should do for now. In the Bible language about God is mostly masculine. That's a fact, but so what. The Bible was written in the language of the day. Some are of the opinion that we do find traces of a feminine God in early Israel, but this obviously did not last, and the monotheistic idea won in the end. But if we forget about exegesis for a moment, and try and look at how we find language to talk about God. Then we need to recognize that the language we use is only metaphorical, and we cannot for a moment think that God is limited to human categories, like being ontologically "male", or something like this, can we?
So, trying to find Biblical support for God being feminine might be a bit difficult, although, some metaphors do exist, but this do not rule out that in our day, we are still finding language to talk about God, not simply reciting Bible verses. Thus, and I have a feeling that this argument might seem like an illogical mess, theologically I have a problem with seeing God as essentially male OR female, but when trying to find language, we are limited to our what we as humans have, and then I have not problem in referring to God as either male or female.
But on a practical note I struggle. Should I talk alternately about God as "he" and then "she"? Or rather try and steer away from gender language, something like : "God Godself is God of all God's creation", not really working either. In the end I prefer to make my theology of no gender in God known where necessary, but still us the common language of "God himself".
Woman in ministry, and the nature of the emerging conversation
Maybe writing some thoughts on this cannot be done without writing some thoughts on the emerging conversation. I don't think we can put the emerging conversation into any traditional theological box. Tony Jones made one of the most significant remarks about emerging writers, when he said that you always have to know where they are coming from. Mclaren from a conservative fundamentalist background, Jones from a mainline protestant background. But they found each other in conversation and friendship, and are talking theology together. Kimball is one of the more conservative writers in the emerging church, but he is rethinking theology and church for postmoderns coming from a more traditional conservative background, and that is a good thing, and I enjoy his writings. Within the mainline protestant theological background I'm coming from, no one would theologically even think to challenge the idea that woman should be in ministry, should be leaders in our churches (although reality is that in practice many still struggle with the idea).
So...
Personally, if ever I am in a congregation where I have at least one colleague, I would like if that is a woman, I think woman bring a different and important perspective into ministry which I won't see. If I am alone, I hope that they will form an important part in the leadership of the congregation, and not just the children’s ministry!
But I don't think you will find an "emerging" approach to woman in ministry. As much as I would like it to be absolutely open to woman in ministry, and as hard as I will defend woman that want to be in ministry and feel called to be leaders in congregations, I must admit that their is difference of opinion on this in the emerging conversation, and make room for this. Kind of contrasting, but isn't this just part of the fact that we are having a conversation?
OK, that was a mouth full...
blogging at mycontemplations.wordpress.com
so where are all the chicks then?
Is it blogging, Emergent Culture or theology that makes this website 95% + male?
Here I am!!
I'm a chick and I'm here:-) Just listening... :-)
i see that hand
Hi Linda
Thanks for that, its appreciated.
So, what are you hearing? Do you identify with this emergent culture at all; what are your reservations, what are your hopes?
subject matter
I think it is the subject matter - heavy on philosophy and ideas, very little on practice. My wife is interested and LIVES nearly everything discussed on here. She just doesn't have the time to sit around talking about it because she is busy doing it.
That's great but what do you mean?
Arthur,
What do you mean by "little on practice"? I'm also picking up your last sentence as being quite negative about conversation? Am I hearing you correctly?
Envoy
let's start by looking in the mirror
If this emerging conversation is 95% male, then maybe we should consider that the conversation is lacking something, not least of all some perspectives, female perspectives.
This reminds me of cori's 'white-male-philosophical conversation'. Seems lile this need to be talked out some more.
OK, so on why only males? Well, society has tended to consider technology as a male enterprise, which caused some girls to be left out of the computer thing at school level, not officially of course.
Emerging conversations world wide tend to be mostly male, but at least some of them have started to actively seek to change the conversation to also have a higher amount of females (I'm thinking especially emergentvillage now).
However, I still believe that the church traditio where yu come from will have the biggest determining factor on a theological conversation. If the people taking part are frok churches that make a lot of room for woman in leadership, we will have more woman in the conversation.
But hey, this is what we have. question seems to be: should we simply accept it, or actively try and change it?
blogging at mycontemplations.wordpress.com
proactivity
Covuswv,
I lean toward the idea that deliberate, responsible and proactive change is required. As men we have a responsibility to be part of the process. Have you got any thoughts or suggestions on how to help this happen better?
Envoy
Feminists?
It's my opinion, and experience, that feminism is the real minority in the church. Most women I know don't feel marganilized in the church. Perhaps the church group I come from, things are different. I know everyone's advertising their blog here, but I wrote about this thing of women leading at the church at mine a few months ago. The post is as this link : ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com
You will notice that all the women (ok, it's like 4) that responded had NO ISSUE with my post, and actually believed it was better. It may be of interest to readers here.
As far as the divine feminine goes, I think this is a non-issue. Really. We can do far more good by just educating people that male and female is equal, and that God is GOD, not male or female. Plus, we can educate them what 'father' means in God's context rather than trying to change the metaphor God decided to use to explain how this relationship works. I know many people have been abused by fathers etc, so the metaphor is difficult. But a mother metaphor simply does not make this better. People have been abused by mothers too. We do far better by just educating what father actually means, which would also help men to take up their position in the home and lead and love as Christ did (and does.)
i hear you but...
Stray,
I'm not convinced that this is such a non-issue. I've experienced that male language = acceptable and that female language = not acceptable and dissaproved. If we're comfortable with a "father" metaphor ought we not equally to be comfortable with a "mother" metaphor?
I'm leaning toward a remedial use of my language with reference to Godself and hence chosen to speak in the feminine for a period of time as part of my process.
Envoy
To a degree, yes
Perhaps my use of 'metaphor' is unfounded. You're quite right - we should be happy with mother metaphors. Perhaps the Catholic Church knows this a lot better.
I mean, I was encouraged when Luther said this (in the movie, I don't know if he really said it) that "The language of the Bible should be like a mother talking to her children." There are some motherly metaphors in the Bible too - a hen gathering her chicks etc. I'm comfortable with using motherly metaphors when we talk about God.
The issue, for me, is that when I see the word 'goddess' I immediately have a picture in my mind of a half naked greek or earth goddess who is pretty well endowed. While I know that the Spirit is about joy and delight, I don't think this picture is entirely helpful :) I'm sure I'm not the only one!
When I think 'God' I think Spirit, not male or female. Perhaps we should rather find a way of using a word that conveys this image instead of God or Goddess. As has been mentioned the Holy Spirit is mentioned in Hebrew writings in a feminine nature (I don't know for sure, but Jason mentioned it earlier.) I would rather say we ought to refer to God as Holy Spirit more often, or use words like 'comforter' or other metaphors to help us get away from male-orientated to spirit orientated instead. This could be the better middle road instead of goddess or god.
Lastly, I am often confused with your posts when you say 'Godself' - do you simply mean The Loving One?
www.ryanpeterwrites.com
"The Glory of God is man fully alive" - St Iraneaus
Aphrodite: yeah baby!
Stray
Once again, good wrestling here. You are in the process of expanding and shaping words, language, concepts and more, and I admire that. I like the way you self reflect about how you see words such as "God", "Spirit", "Goddess".
These idols/icons are given to us and we are responsible for them, they don't come with a prepackaged meaning. As Iraneaus says, G-d's glory is in our aliveness, and wrestling and defining and redefining is all part of that aliveness.
I see a lot of this as the struggle between Logos and Sophia/Eros. I find it challenging but helpful to see Jesus the Christ not only as Logos (masculine, static, overarching) which is what the church always taught me, but also as Sophia Incarnate. Sophia has a Hebrew counterpart "Chokmah": here's an interesting (if hey shyoo a bit like gnostic) collection of writings about her. Also check out proverbs.
And I also look to Eros who has been so demonised as "fleshly", "feeling", "sexual". That quality is infact about Intimacy and Sentience (feeling, matter not spirit). How Incarnate and how Holding is G-d? G-d was, is and will be flesh, through Jesus and Us; knowing and becoming one with G-d is the ultimate in Intimacy. Seen this way, the Gospel is a supremely Erotic Narrative.
You move in this direction when you talk of "the Comforter". However I'd like to question your "move from male-orientated to spirit orientated" - I think its a little strange to neuter G-d/dess like that. G-d for me encompasses being fully male and fully female.
I'll let the Envoyess reply to the "Godself" technicality.
Are you really a penguin?
whatself
Hey Nic & Stray,
I use "Godself" similarly to how we all use "himself" and "herself" when speaking. When speaking of "God/-ess" as a unique being, with respect to gender - not hemaphrodite and not androgynous and not one sex versus another (each member of the Trinity is co-equal in attributes and essence and hence I believe fully masculine and fully feminine) - I find it helps to use "Godself".
Envoy
Lol
Lol, yep - It made school quite difficult, but I managed to get through it eventually. It's not easy being a penguin in the church, either, you know - people judge you unfairly, and then there is the whole issue of orientation which can make things quite difficult :)
www.ryanpeterwrites.com
"The Glory of God is man fully alive" - St Iraneaus
openness
Hi Stray,
Thanks for being so open about your journey. I hope you've found a place of inclusion and love. Penguins hug nicely so your contribution to community is noted but I'm sure the holy kiss thing must not go down to well.
Envoy
but what do others hear...?
Hi Stray,
I find that Christians do picture a "half-naked women" or female god-thing when I use feminine language. On the other hand, I spend a lot of time with people who aren't Christian and they seem to have a dionisian (spell-check) view on "God". When I think of God/-ess I think of both male and female rather than an androgynous being. God/-ess is for me fully masculine and fully feminine.
I often tend to speak of "Spirit" rather than "God" where possible but do find that speaking in the masculine and feminine is better suited when speaking personally.
Envoy
i will read...
Stray,
Thanks for pointing out your blog. I will read it and post a reply there and here in a bit. My time is short at the moment but I'll make a plan in the next day or two.
Envoy
not for me
Stray
I'm glad you feel that the divine femine is a non issue, but I don't.
The "Image of G-d" is wounded and simply strengthening / correcting the masculine side of things without redressing the injustice against and rediscovering the feminine, isn't enough. That makes the assumption that the feminine is as Cori says, the deviant, the outsider. It's a bit like the old national party's reform policies.
It's clear that masculinity is in a mess. I say that as a male who takes masculinity seriously. I defend it too, often against feminists, and I don't buy the new wimpering male thing. But still, its seriously problematic, even in our generation.
I'll take a look at your writ and get into a more constructive discussion then.
Envoy
Hey Nic, see my response to Envoy above and let me know your thoughts. Thanks man.
www.ryanpeterwrites.com
"The Glory of God is man fully alive" - St Iraneaus
rules of engagement
When I was still at my wonderful liberal university, studying English literature, it felt to me that both men and women in my academic circles deeply understood the challenges around gender in every aspect of our society today - from the language we use, to power relations, to the structures both men and women internalise without even being aware of it.
My experience of the world outside of the academy has been a shock. The level of incredible ignorance amongst both men and women (especially within the faith) of the persistant 'othering' of women is astounding. Men continue to form the normative and women always that which deviates from this norm.
This is evident everywhere. There is the main event (the normative event, the male event) and then there is an event for women (the deviant event, the 'other' event). There is the central conversation (assumed male) and then there is the women's conversation. This is even the case at Emergent Village.
The term 'feminism' is unhelpful, especially in the church context where it has been so grossly misunderstood. What do we call it when a divorced woman has no income, no education and no access to employment because, with the support of our Christian culture, she has had to stay at home all her life? The church has meted out countless unrecognised injustices towards women throughout its long history (and until today, everyday). I wonder if we can honestly say that as men we have loved women as Christ loved the church (he did not lead the church as much as he died for the church, he did not dominate the church as much as he served the church).
If we are even going to begin this discussion a whole lot of rules of engagement need to be put in place for 'the other' (in this case, women) not to be hurt, albeit unintentionally, due to a lack of understanding or knowledge. Some suggestions are: Avoid all stereotypes. Avoid all generalizations. Avoid all terminology. That would be a good start. There is so much humility needed when those in power (any normative group) approach 'the other' to try meet them half way. It is admirable to want to do this. But one cannot do it on one's own terms. If I want to reach out to someone of another culture, to serve them, I need to do it on their terms, leaving my own comfort zone to enter their's. I think there is a tremendous need for men who follow Jesus to begin to humbly do exactly that.
creating a new normative
Cori,
Thanks for your post - you've really lent voice to some of what I've experiencing albeit from a male point of view. I believe I've tried to avoid "feminist" language and some stereotyping but please forgive me if I haven't and point out if I've offended in any way.
As I'm leaning toward growing a faith community this question is coming up again. The difference between the now period in my life and prior periods is that in the past I've worked in churches others have set up and hence worked within inherited structures. I'd really like to hear some thoughts, from you and other women, on how I, as a man, can a) be sensitive to the issues and b) provide some kind of remedial response from the starting point in forming community. So I guess I'm asking how you think I can "leave my comfort zone" in this area and enter "women's". I realise that language and concept usage is but a small part but undersand this to go much deeper and much further.
Envoy
now you are talking.
Cori
Thats a great and heartfelt post. I can FEEL it, and while uncomfortable, trust the honesty.
What do you think of Envoys crazy plan to refer to G-d in the feminine for one full year?
I say that language is a prime site of stuggle. Of course in taking it or any corrective action on, we risk "political correctness" where we start sounding as hollow and "normative" as the sexist aberation.
So I say we stay light, creative, humourous, adventurous, while underneath really engage with the injustice. I'll tell you straight - I await the word from woman. This man dominated culture is very needy.
Matthew Fox is well worth hearing. His theology is heavily drenched in Sophia; he looks not to "feminism" but to the likes of Hildegard of Bingen, Julian of Norwich and Mechtild of Magdeburg, for a centuries old Christian tradition of the mystical divine feminine.
Post new comment