Getting Beyond God the Father
Featured — By Rachel Pater on June 17, 2010 at 8:00 am
I was recently offered a job as the director of a children’s ministry at a local church. An entire wing of the over 40,000 sq. ft. building would be for my use, a wing whose walls had been painted by another church group sometime in the 70s. One room had a mural of Adam and Eve, the latter a blonde bombshell with hair surreptitiously covering her chest. Jonah’s feet sticking out of the mouth of a whale adorned the wall of another room – a not-so-subtle reminder for the children of what happens when you refuse to do God’s bidding.
I cringed at these and other theologically shaky depictions of biblical stories. But more disturbing than these images was a message painted above the entryway, which read, “Welcome to My Father’s House.” I immediately took measurements so I could sew up a banner that would offer what I thought a less ominous message: “Welcome, Highlands Kids!” (I did this just before I removed the second most dangerous thing in the space: rusted coat hooks left on the wall just the right height to poke an unsuspecting child’s eye out.) I affixed the banner to the stucco walls and breathed a sigh of relief, knowing that even if the kids learned little to nothing about the Bible, they would not think of God as Male (at least under my direction).
My aversion to this language is obviously personal. I was raised in a tradition that taught me only of a Father God – a denomination that began ordaining women in 2007 after years of feet-dragging. The correlation between their language and lack of justice in this area, I believe, is a direct one. Why would a Male God need the help of a female to do His work? God has historically been depicted as both male and white, and though images of a dark-skinned Deity are becoming more accepted (even within white, Western Christian churches), images of a female God are still relegated to New Age and Mother Goddess traditions, even though God is depicted as female in numerous Bible verses.
Mary Daly, a revered feminist writer (who has her share of critics from within and outside women’s movements), took the church to task on this issue in her book, “Beyond God the Father,” published in 1973. In it, Daly says that the church’s long-held tradition of depicting God as male and using only male language to describe God has led to internalized images of male superiority. This projection of God originates, she argues, with attributing the original sin to the Female, or Eve. It is perpetuated with the emphasis on the Maleness of Jesus by helping us subconsciously equate “male” with “savior.” She notes the far-reaching effects of these ingrained ideas of male superiority, from witch hunts to rape. Furthermore, the current systemically and theologically sexist church, she argues, is built on foundations of patriarchy.
Mary Daly died in January of this year, still renouncing Christianity and religion as a whole. Would she have been tempted to reconsider if, in the decades since she left it, the church had become a place that reeked of the contagious freedom she wrote about? In other words, how far have we come, especially in terms of the liberation and acceptance of this oft-times oppressed half of the world?
Though we’d sometimes like to think otherwise, the church is no trendsetter on points of social action. We promoted and participated in slavery on the basis of our biblical text. We have oppressed women in our churches because of a comment from Paul (and, as Daly would argue, ingrained notions of male superiority). We continue to marginalize LGBTQ folks, and many churches are still segregated by color.
Is our inability to imagine and reluctance to work toward a world full of liberated people (that is, people able to live and thrive without the influence of systems and persons who oppress them) linked to our limited imagination about the nature of God? Does the human desire to anthropomorphize God in our own image keep us from acting on behalf of oppressed peoples? Specifically, does our white god care about the liberation of people of color? Does our straight God care about the liberation of gays? Is a male God concerned about women free to realize their humanity and holiness?
The issue of the sign in my children’s area continues to plague me. The stucco walls to which I affixed the new sign with sticky removable hooks have not held the heavy banner. I have tried poster putty and copious amounts of cursing and duct tape, but every few weeks I come in on Sunday morning only to find it lying sadly on the floor as the welcome to “My Father’s House” again triumphs over my head. This highly frustrating, very physical experience has paralleled my experience with the church. The frustration is now forcing me to decide: will I find a place to work within these structures? Will I, like Mary Daly, choose to reject my own tradition? Will it reject me first?
59 Comments
I want to believe this but my Biblical conservatism and Presbyterian upbringing is not wanting to let me. Which verses reference God as female? I am curious.
When someone wants to emphasize the importance of a particular concept or cause that is near and dear to their heart, they’ll reference the number of times in Scripture that it is mentioned. We hear that Jesus speaks about feeding the poor 400 times (made up number, too lazy to look it up), or about money over 2000 times. Or homosexuality zero times.
So I cannot be intrigued by your claim of God being mentioned in Scripture “multiple” times. Other than one comparison to a mother hen, which isn’t a description or a name applied to God, but a comparison, I am aware of no instances like you refer to. Can you help me out here?
I think it’s pretty understandable why we’ve called him Father over 2000 years. He’s constantly referred to as that by Jesus, and others, including (contrary to what some will tell you) in the Old Testament. And then there’s the time that when Jesus told His listeners how to pray, He started with “Our Father…”.
I dunno. I cannot relate to even having a father figure. I don’t know what it’s like. But I do know that God has been opening up to me the understanding of what it is, so that He can father me, the first time that’s been done by anyone in 4 decades. I figure He knows what He’s doing, so there must be something right with the image of Him as Father.
For more on that, see this: http://middletree.blogspot.com/2010/06/fathers-day.html
Anyway, not arguing with you, just saying I don’t see the Father thing as a negative.
I do think the amount of times something is brought up is important, though, James. Particularly if a topic is brought up repeatedly across an array of writers.
I agree, Jordan. That’s why I asked for proof of the multiple references. Sorry I wasn’t clear. Also, I’m sorry I said “So I cannot be intrigued by” when I meant to say “So I cannot help but be intrigued by”
Yes James I can see why you would not see the “father thing” as negative, but then you are of the gender that benefits from patriarchy soooooooooo
Lo, so we aren’t obligated to trust Jesus when He refers to God as Father, if we happen to be the other gender? Sorry, I’m not convinced that His word is malleable for the purpose of not offending our hypersensitivity. If He said “father” repeatedly, He must have had a reason.
“Mary Daly died in January of this year, still renouncing Christianity and religion as a whole. Would she have been tempted to reconsider if, in the decades since she left it, the church had become”
This is sad. She expected a religion to change to fit her viewpoint, and it cost her a relationship with God. Terribly sad ending.
I understand that Christianity has often been male-centric, and that has almost invariably been a bad thing.
But I’m with James here: we refer to God the Father because the Father is a specific part of the Trinity, mentioned frequently by Jesus. I feel uncomfortable throwing away that entire concept, along with Jesus’ words, because it’s been frequently misinterpreted as “God is male”. I think most Christians worth their salt would agree God is neither male nor female, but I doubt the Fatherhood imagery is accidental, part of a conspiracy, or inconsequential.
So on one hand, Rachel, I agree with your premise that we shouldn’t see God as a bearded white male, but how do you reconcile throwing out Jesus’ words?
James, maybe Jesus did not say Father but was quoted as saying Father by the male writer….
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135
Try Genesis 1:27, Hosea 13:8, Deuteronomy 32:11-12, Deuteronomy 32:18, Isaiah 66:13, Isaiah 49:15, Isaiah 42:14, Psalm 123:2-3, Matthew 23:37, Luke 13:34, and Luke 15:8-10. (Just to start.)
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Excellent verse. Valid point.
==========
Hosea 13:8 I will meet them like a bereaved bear, and will tear the lining of their heart. And there I will devour them like a lion; the wild beast shall tear them.
Some translations add “of her whelps” after ‘bereaved” but that phrase is not in the original Hebrew. It’s in italics in most translations, which tells you there are no corresponding words in the original text. They were added later.
More important, saying that God is “like” anything or anyone doesn’t count. Jesus didn’t say “Our God who is like a Father in heaven”.
==========
Deuteronomy 32:11 As an eagle stirs up her nest, flutters over her young, spreads abroad her wings, takes them and bears them on her wing,
Isaiah 66:13 As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; and you will be comforted in Jerusalem.
Isaiah 42:14 I have kept silence from forever; I have been still and refrained Myself. Now I will cry like a woman in pangs of labor, I will pant and gasp at once.
Psalm 123:2 Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their masters; as the eyes of a maiden to the hand of her mistress; so our eyes wait on Jehovah our God, until He shall have mercy on us.
Matthew 23:37, Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!
Again, the words “as” and “like”. He’s saying he’s *like* a mother eagle or a mother in a particular way. I can be “like” a football or a sandwich or a car if I look hard enough. Doesn’t mean I am one.
==========
Deuteronomy 32:18 You forgot the Rock who brought you forth, and ceased to care for God who formed you.
Huh?
==========
Isaiah 49:15 Can a woman forget her suckling child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yes, they may forget, yet I will not forget you.
Luke 15:8-10 Or what woman having ten drachmas, if she loses one drachma, does she not light a lamp and sweep the house, and seek carefully until she finds it? And when she has found it, she calls her friends and her neighbors together, saying, Rejoice with me, for I have found the drachma which I had lost. Likewise I say to you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.
This is not even comparing God to a woman, but contrasting Himself with her. Very weak example.
Actually, I would argue that the Genesis reference does not refer to God as female or a woman. It states that both men and women were created in God’s image. we can draw the conclusion, then, that the strengths and roles of both are fashioned after and contained withing God, but that is not the same as being a woman.
One more objection to Daly as she is portrayed here: “She notes the far-reaching effects of these ingrained ideas of male superiority, from witch hunts to rape.”
Just because an idea might have some adherents who twist it to end up with undesirable results does not negate the truth in the idea itself. If it’s true that God is to be thought of as Father, then we should do so. If it’s not true, then prove it, and I’ll reject the idea. But I don’t see the wisdom in rejecting Jesus’ choice of words because someone other than Jesus did bad things with that as a germ of their ideas.
I’m not wanting to get past “God the Father.” Jesus taught us to identity God as father when he taught his disciples to pray.
However, I agree that we ignore the verses that discuss God’s “feminine side.” Genesis 1:27 is enough to attack chauvinism– it took male and female to make a representation of God’s image.
And it’s undeniable that patriarchal thinking has damaged our view of women, men, and the Gospel.
Rachel, you’re a pastor who works with kids– yet another reason why you’re the best. That’s one of my ministerial hats too.
haha, i love it when “christians” demand “proof”
Dylan, I think you meant that post to be on the post above Larry’s.
Dylan, I should have used a word different than “prove”. How’s this: if you are going to say that God doesn’t want to be referred to as Father, then back up your statement.
I’m not sure that Rachel’s argument is against the use of father imagery for God, but rather that the almost singularity of metaphors for God being male is problematic.
Its understandable that limited human beings would come up with limited metaphors to describe God – a hugeness of mercy we cannot entirely comprehend – but the fact that those metaphors have historically been male has impacted our lived theologies. The male pronoun is used consistently when talking about God – it’s even capitalized so we can be sure we are talking about the “Him.”
Furthermore, it seems to me that the traits of ‘fatherhood’ or ‘motherhood’ or ‘savior’ or ‘redeemer’ are what should be valued – not the maleness/femaleness associated with those metaphors.
Or are we really saying that God has a penis? And that God’ penis is of the utmost importance to us?
I would hope my relationship with God (and everyone else in my life) transcends the genitals of that person.
Very well put.
I do think there’s a distinction between fatherhood and motherhood. It may have nothing to do with gender, but more with the traits associated with each.
Well said Rachel.
Mary Daly (who I’m admittedly not the biggest fan of) also said “If God is male, then male is God.” which is the salient point here. In other words, Rachel is asking that we look at how our gendered language for God informs our concept of humanity in unhelpful ways. Perhaps a Sunday where, instead of our exclusive use of “he” and “Father” in prayer, we instead say “Dear penis-having God” if that’s what we really mean. If it is not what we really mean then we should accompany Father language with more and more expansive expressions of who this creator-redeemer-sustainer God is. Perhaps we either go back to Ha-shem, meaning “the Name” in which we do not dare to name God or we use a great multiplicity of names for God. To do the middle thing of using a few names (which center around one gender over another) is to indulge in conceptual idolatry in which we worship our ideas and not God’s own self. Because here’s the thing: God is un-nameable and omni-nameable.
And yet Jesus still tells us to pray saying “Our Father…”
I guess that’s where I’m having a hard time. I can understand cultural shifts, and I can understand how the use of he/him/his has resulted in misogyny.
But to reject God the Father as a part of the Trinity seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and simultaneously rejecting Fatherhood as intrinsically valuable.
Maybe Protestant culture’s rejection of Mary has gone too far, or maybe we should view the Holy Spirit as Motherhood, but I’m having a hard time thinking we should stop calling God “Father” if Jesus specifically tells us to do so.
The father metaphor isn’t a confession that God has “junk.” It’s an understanding of his role as our parent.
Otherwise referring to God as “father/mother” is just as problematic– We’d be calling him the Divine Hermaphrodite.
…
Regardless, praying for the time when the Gospel dissolves the power imbalances between men and women and the both genders live in partnership as it was in Eden.
Jordan, you said what I was trying to say. Very well said.
BTW, I like this: Deuteronomy 1:31 “and in the wilderness where you have seen how Jehovah your God carried you, as a man carries his son”
Reminds me of how I carry my kids on my shoulders. My wife did pick up the kids, too, when they were real small, but this verse gives me a picture of something pretty unique to dads, and it’s a great picture.
Larry, that was dang funny. Junk!
@ Larry-
Is fatherhood the same as motherhood? Unfortunately, not in the culture I live in. We associate certain traits with mothers and others with fathers (see response about mothers only picking up ‘small babies’) I would like to get to a point where you can be a father and do mommy things, or be a mother and do daddy things, and we wouldn’t even have distinctly gendered language for that . . .but we’re not there.
Larry, your argument DOES seem to be particularly invested in God having junk – otherwise, what does it matter to say mother, or father, or just parent? You are attached to gender in a very particular way, it seems. The definitions of what a ‘man’ is or even what a ‘father’ is have changed across time, so the only constant you could possibly be referring to is the biological gender indicated by genitals, chromosomes and hormones. Are we praying to a testosterone driven God?
Frankly, I don’t want to believe in a God that is limited by frail human constructions of Gender, so being able to conceptualize of God as both/neither/all/everything is helpful for me . . .unfortunately, because of the culture I live in and the language I have access to, the best I can do to get to this all/everything space is to use lots of different metaphors.
Prayer is powerful, but what if we also lived into the ideas we pray for?
This is to Andie about your last post. You don’t want to believe in a God limited to gender, which is a human construction. What’s awesome is, you don’t have to. You can believe in a flying spaghetti monster, you can believe in a divine tissue filled with life giving snott, hell you can believe in yourself. There’s a reality though, and now matter how much you WANT it to be different, it turns out it’s not. Stuff exists, such as God, and exists in a certain way, such as God the Father, and saying you want it to be different changes things about as much as calling BP and asking them to not let there be any more oil spills will change whether there are any more oil spills. You don’t get to decide reality. No God does not have a penis, except for Jesus, but He is referred to primarily as male (in the Bible anyway). I,as a male, am not God Hashem is, and that ridiculous phrase someone quoted from Daly earlier makes as much sense as a altruistic billionare. If you want to be egalitarian, great, just don’t go around telling people God is something other than what He describes Himself as (through His revelation), that’s heresy and just plain lame. Quit bein’ so pomo.
First, I respect audacious, thought-provoking writing and Ms. Pater’s piece is that. Rock on!
Second, I’m not sure I completely agree with her (Ms. Pater, that is, not God…wink) I’m still processing, but I respect her or anyone’s drive to challenge my thinking and stir my thoughts on the status quo. As we constantly refresh our web browsers, so should we also be constantly refreshing our thinking. Perhaps this is what we should take from this article?
Third, social marginality is felt the LEAST by those who are regularly accepted by society, so to say that this “He” language is not harmful indicates that it might not be for YOU, but, but unfortunately, it IS silencing a population who think it kind of is.
Fourth, James, you said that part of a verse that Ms. Pater gave us to read was “not in the original Hebrew translation.” Unfortunately, though I’m not a Hebrew scholar, I’m not really sure how much of what we read in the Bible today IS in the original Hebrew translation.
Finally, if nothing else…Hosea 13:8 is a pleasant surprise because I always dig Bible verses about bears.
Cate, what I meant was that the words aren’t there at all. I don’t mean they are word in Hebrew that could be translated or interpreted in many ways. I mean they aren’t there. That phrase which includes the word ‘her” was added thousands of years later. The words before and after that are generally agreed upon as being part of whatever Hebrew manuscripts were used. But that phrase was just added for no discernible reason.
Wow, brilliantly written AND articulated. I’m proud to know you.
I find that most of the problems with understanding scripture in American culture is the inability (unwillingness) to *really* study scripture. Most books that American Evangelicals Fundamentalists are studying come from the American-Evangelical-Pastor-of-a-large-church-so-people-kind-of-expect-me-to-write-a-book-on-what-the-scriptures-are-”really saying”-type of authors. People think of these men as “theologians” but that is simply not true. Theologians are people who devote their lives to understanding the words, the intent, the history, the traditions, the writing-types that are invested in what we call The Bible. They also understand a lot more than the lay-pastor-writer about how the Bible came to exist. They write for peer-reviewed publications and work a lifetime for that title. (I discovered this mistake when my father referred to some random pastor as a theologian. The difference between this pastor and a friend who is studying to be a REAL theologian, rather offensive.)
Having said that, it seems obvious (to everyone else looking from the outside) that the church system has been designed to retain power. Power over the illiterate, power over the poor, power over children, power over races, power over classes and, most notably egregious, power over women.
Anytime I hear about a person speaking of the femininity of God and the responding outcry from men…I think, “Yes, the thought of any loss of power is a frightening concept.” I try to give men grace on this point – they are scared; I get that. However, I must admit, I judge them a little and lose just a little bit of respect for them.
Larry, I think the “Divine Hermaphrodite” is an excellent answer to this problem! That one makes me happy…you just bumped a notch on that respect-o-meter with that one, my friend.
Maria, I’m a bit insulted that because I’m a man, I can’t look at Rachel’s argument, decide that it doesn’t gel with what I know about Scripture, only because I’m scared and want to retain my power. I don’t have any power to speak of, and I think I would know if I’m scared or not. Thanks for the false accusation and psychoanalysis from a distance. I appreciate it.
“Yes, the thought of any loss of power is a frightening concept.” Isn’t that true for women, too? If I’m really honest about why I balk at verses about submission and wifeness and childbirth (and community, because that’s no picnic, either), it is, in some part, because I’m scared of sacrificing power.
Should we go back through all literature and change words we deem culturally inappropriate? Should we fix Huckleberry Finn and The Merchant of Venice?
These aren’t even considered holy texts, but the idea of changing them seems ridiculous.
@Jordan There is a difference between a literary text and a religious text. Very few would advocate changing language in a literary text (like Huck Finn) because its role, in part, is to serve as a record of the times it was written in. A religious text like the Bible, however, MUST change with the times if it is to be relevant to its modern readers. Its role is not a fixed record but the living breathing Word of God. Most of us no longer find the “thees and thous” of the KJV helpful, so we create the NKJV. Or the Living Bible. Or the Message. Similarly, as our culture begins to write more gender inclusively, readers are becoming trained to see “he” and “him” as intentionally male, and it becomes appropriate to translate words that are intended to include all humans into “they” or “he or she.” It’s not ridiculous; it’s fully appropriate and necessary.
@Maria, Power is the subtext of most of these discussions, as you pointed out. Historically, women have been called on most often to follow Christ’s example of willingly relinquishing power–called on by men in the church, that is. Maybe this is why the global church is 2/3 women. Christ’s attitude and message resonates most strongly with those who are disenfranchised and who, willingly or not, understand submission and sacrifice. If so, it might be time for Christian men to start loosening their grip on gender power–not for our benefit, but for their own.
Rachel, thanks for a great post. This discussion needs to happen more often.
@Devon: You make a strong point.
Arguing against the use of He/Him/His doesn’t particularly bother me, because God does not have a gender. Switching everything to He/She seems superfluous, but I wouldn’t have a problem if all instances were just changed to “God”.
What bothers me is revising the idea of God the Father, of changing Jesus’ words. There are dozens of areas of the Bible I am uncomfortable with, that I believe create cultural misconceptions, or seem to propagate very non-Christian ideals. But I don’t claim we should remove them, because I think they are part of the story of Christianity, and I also assume that I am not always right.
As Annie pointed out elsewhere in these comments, we may not like the image of God the Father, or that we are the Bride of Christ, or that even that we are the salt of the earth (high sodium intake is dangerous), but that does not mean we change it…the Bible may be living and breathing, but it lives and breathes regardless of our whims.
Rachel, thanks for the article and the care you bring to children’s ministry. I wish my Sunday School teachers had been as inclusive and thoughtful as you.
My understanding is that at the time when Jesus said it, “Father” was a radical metaphor, not about gender but about God’s relational nature…that God was a God who was accessible and loving. And that was radically different to people who heard about that part of God’s identity for the first time.
2,000 years later, God as father is old news. The metaphor for God’s relational nature has been turned into an idol. Seriously, how obsessed are people with the He’s and Him’s (emphasis on the capital H)? For many people today, the metaphor of father does not communicate that God is relational, but rather it communicates that men are superior at the expense of women. Or maybe just that if you are female, there is not much to feel included in. I can’t believe Jesus intended this. Even if it’s the same word Jesus used, the message it communicates is very different today. (Don’t even get me started on all the baggage people bring to the metaphor about their own father issues.) What we need are new metaphors to communicate the radical message of God’s love, mercy, and relational nature which is how I believe Jesus intended “Father” to be.
Also, I’m not a Hebrew expert, but I did study it for a year at seminary. The ambiguity of God’s gender in the Hebrew Bible is incredible. For example, there are places where God has masculine pronouns but is doing verbs that only women can do (i.e. He was birthing the world).
I think the challenge God has in relating to us as His creation is that we are limited in so many ways. Gender being the issue in this piece. I would suggest that the cultural expectations in which the Scripture predominantly was written would indicate a male-centric approach. This is not so much a commentary on God as it is upon the cultures which have embraced the Judeo-Christian God and lived in the light of His revelation. I agree with Gal that YHWH’s use of female metaphors is remarkable since these would stand out so greatly to the male-dominated Jewish and Christian communities through time. God is truly a courageous deity to identify with both male and female. This is something we need to consider when speaking of God’s mission to us.
21st century Christians should grapple with gender since we have reached a greater measure of egalitarianism than most societies throughout history.
Rachel thank you for this piece. I always enjoy when we are challenged to think beyond our natural human limitations to consider God’s perspective and our treatment of the interpretation of His Person.
Now I’m listening to “My Fathers House” by Bruce Springsteen…thanks!
You say, “Does the human desire to anthropomorphize God in our own image keep us from acting on behalf of oppressed peoples?” So I must ask, what do you and Ms. Daly want? An asexual-chameleon god who’s indifference morphs to all human desires?
I agree, the limits of language often stifle theology both in theory and in practice….and the church has made many mistakes. But I don’t know if this should be your hill to die on… I mean, you are (at least it appears to be) a middle class, white woman in America working as a children’s minister in 2010…you’re one of the least oppressed people in human history. Pray for thanks…and continue to shepherd those children. Teach them to sustain and love the earth…to fight injustice…to share their cookies…and of course the ten commandments…triumph in love..not a damn banner.
Or in other words, “Woman, you have stepped out of your place!”
@Gal:
No need for rhetoric. I think so far the conversation has been fairly reasonable and I think the men who’ve commented have at least attempted to be cognizant of being within the margins in this discussion.
Since Jesus himself referred to the house of worship for the Judeo-Christian God as his father’s house, it would be difficult to claim such a statement as dangerous or an innaccuracy Christ.
I know the whole thing is uncomfortable, especially to friends of mine who have been oppressed as women or have terrible father figures. However, that’s not a functional basis for rejection of the imagery or what it means. I have never known a single biological relative, so almost all Biblical references to biological family/legacy/geneology/birth are uncomfortable and unrelatable to me. The Bible also refers to Christ a bridegroom a lot, and us as the bride, which I imagine is weird if you’re a man. If we start throwing out anything that isn’t in our comfort zone or anything that can be misused, we won’t have much left.
I quit going to church partly because the male leaders I kept encountering were so abusive, and I still don’t know how to reconcile accepting what the Bible says about church with the damage that is done to people. That doesn’t mean I get to change what the Bible says, or who God is. It means I have to choose whether I accept or reject it. People like Hitchens get that, I think. Maybe Daly understood it, too.
Never thought I’d say this, but, I agree with Annie.
Emily, I feel like we should high-five or something. It’s sort of a milestone…
@ all,
That “Divine Hermaphrodite” comment might have come off as more glib and dismissive than I intended. The logic is there, but I think it came out snarky.
@ Ande, Agreed that prayer is only the start.
I’m trying to come up with a quip… something involving “Pater” being Latin for Father… but it’s just not coming to me.
Oh, well.
Sorry, I don’t have anything meaningful to contribute.
I guess my personal alarm went off when I began the second paragraph which states, “I cringed at these and other theologically shaky depictions of biblical stories.”
It continued to clang in my head as I read further.
In short, I believe you are guilty of the same interpretive faults others have made in authority… they latch on to some Scripture and form a bastardized theology without fully understanding the breadth of teaching Scripture has on a given subject.
This is where the church has made mistakes in abuse, and its also where the church makes mistakes in trying to subvert who God is by creating an image of God made in their own image.
Jesus taught us clearly how to pray and referred to God has his father. The verses you sighted are clearly mentioned in Scripture to provide an allusion to the love God has for his people, not to support a feminist point of view.
And I would also be wary of speaking of Scripture as merely a “comment made by Paul” dissmissively.
Ick.
Count me in as another man fearful of losing his power.
Those who argue for the gender-neutralization of God are those who argue that male and female genders have no specific designs or roles assigned by God.
This is clearly not the case, both in the Old Testament and far more clearly in the New.
I will place my vote solidly in the camp of one who thinks that rejecting the fatherhood of God, and the male roles that go with this, is a massive rejection of much of how God wants creation to work. Fatherhood is a specifically male role, and while women are often forced into trying to execute the role due to an absentee father, they cannot pull it off to the same degree that a good male father can. Likewise with motherhood, a role specific to women, which men can do to some extent, but not as well as a woman, because God created her for such a role.
God is our Father. Jesus is our Bridegroom. These are not simply terms used because the patriarchal times called for patriarchal images. These are terms that still hold meaning today, as we understand God through similar imagery. Masculinity and femininity hold beauty to us as they are played out in the way God designed. As we consider God to be the Father many of us never had or wish we had, as we consider Him to love us in the way a husband loves his bride, we understand what He is like. To reject these terms and try to apply the opposite roles is to mischaracterize him. Certainly God has some of the characteristic shared by mothers. But when we consider Him, when we read how He is depicted in Scripture as Father, we cannot look to the Father and call him Mother. If anything, that role belongs more to the Holy Spirit as Comforter – the one who prays for us “with groanings too deep for words” – something comparative to childbirth.
There is vast significance in the types and images given to us by God with which we can understand Him. We cannot reject them because we believe they are language of oppression, or because we think they reflect values we don’t hold.
One of the names for God (El Shaddai) refers to breasts (Hebrew word is shadaim) and the idea of nourishment. That’s definitely a female attribute…
Wow, forty comments. Somebody touched a nerve.
I know I’m late to the party here, and most of you have probably moved on mentally since reading and discussing this article. However, this piece and the discussion that it sparked here have been turning around in my head for a while, and I’ve finally been able to put my thoughts together.
As a woman, I can completely identify with Rachel’s desire to “get beyond” God the Father. As a believer who holds scripture in the highest regard, I can also understand those who are appalled at this idea. I think it was this being-tugged-in-opposite-directions that kept me from saying anything before.
Here’s what I’ve come up with: I think we do need to “get beyond” God the Father. Notice that I didn’t say “reject” the idea or image of God as a Father. As I believe Andi said above, it’s the almost exclusive use of male words and phrases that is the problem, not the fact that they exist at all. In other words, it’s not necessarily problematic to see God as a Father…but it IS problematic if that leads–as it easily can and often has–to seeing God as Father-not-Mother, or as a Male-not-Female being.
Is it wrong to teach kids that God is our Father? Absolutely not. Is it misleading if we leave it at that and allow them to (naturally) define God by their socially constructed ideas of “maleness”? Yes. It is easier, certainly, to teach them, implicitly or explicitly, that God is a man than it is to try to get into the complexity and ambiguity and complete other-ness of God’s nature. But it’s unfair to limit a child’s understanding of who God is like that. How many of us had to de-construct the simplistic idea of God we learned in Sunday School in order to really grasp what this faith thing is all about? I know I (and many of my christian college peers) did. I commend Rachel for having the courage to deal with complexity, especially in children’s ministry. God bless you.
Really? Of all the possible knocks on the church, we’re talking about the problems inherent in the idea of God as a father?
I’m probably very much in the minority here, but I find this type of feminists thinking and fretting to be insecure and self-focused. Granted, I’m probably very comfortable with the idea of a loving father because I have one. One who has always been dependable, faithful, self-sacrificing, had high standards and loved me toward living up to them. In other words, he reinforced, in the flesh, what my Heavenly Father does for believers.
I know that not everyone had the benefit of an earthly father who held up his end of the symbolic bargain, but does that mean we throw out the baby with the bath water, and change our very idea of God?
I’ve always been very comfortable with the idea that men and women are both created in God’s image, are loved by him and are equal in his eyes. But we’re not the same. We bring different attributes and perspectives to family. We play different roles in marriage and in parenting, and they are not 100% interchangeable, no matter how much our culture would like for them to be.
My identity is rooted in what God has said about me in his word. It’s not dependent upon a culture that, admittedly, has been historically male-dominated.
I guess instead of re-engineering the gender characteristics that Christ clearly and repeatedly assigned to God, I just want to worship him. Him. Him. See, I can’t stop saying it…
I think if we admit that the story of Christianity is filled with patriarchal thinking and has had historic– and current– abuses against women, then it would be hard to view “feminist” thinking as “fretting and insecure.”
My views regarding Scripture prohibit me from seeing changing the names and metaphors attributed to God as an option. But minimizing the concerns of our sisters is equally intolerable to me. This isn’t a matter of feminism. This is a matter of humanism.
Well-written, provocative article. And what a fascinating, dynamic discussion. As I’ve read through Rachel’s words and the subsequent comments, this resounded with me:
We are talking about God the Father, primarily. And Jesse D (and others) made comments about the more feminine aspects of God being present in the Holy Spirit. And I think we all agree that Jesus is the Son. Call me crazy, but is the Trinity starting to look like a family to anyone else? Especially when you add in the church’s feminine depiction as Christ’s bride, that we are both married and adopted into this divine family.
True, when we hone in on a single element of a metaphor, the picture begins falling apart–the limited nature of language itself; and, we can talk ourselves blue in the face about the crappy gender roles and crappier treatment of minorities throughout history, both ancient and modern. But, I believe, the fact remains that those tensions we feel are a result of humanity’s fall from grace; and, I believe, they–along with the rest of our garbage–have been, are, and will continue to be redeemed through union with Christ, our welcoming into the divine family. A family, if my math is correct, that has two women and two men–with three members of equal importance and power, regardless of gendered characteristics, and us, present but by the love and grace of the Triune God.
As for what we call God, I believe there are more than enough names to go around. Call me traditional, but I’m a fan of I AM.
First off, I think it is sad that women, especially within churches have felt like lesser citizens or of less worth to God than men. That is not taught in the Bible at all. At the same time, there is Biblically no way around the continued use of the direct title of “Father” for God, but never the direct use of “Mother.” There is also no way around the biblical texts in which man was made first and made ruler over the earth, including his wife. Now, that was never intended to be ruler in an abusive way – see Ephesians 5:25 -but it is the role of authority either way. In fact, the curse of the woman in the fall was that now she would desire to rule over her husband (do a Hebrew study of Genesis 3:16b- “your desire shall be for your husband”).
Despite 2 Timothy 2:14, even this asinine view in American Christianity that Eve sinned first is Biblically incorrect. According to Romans (specifically 5:12-17) and various other places, it is made clear that it was through Adam that sin entered the world. Why? Because the command to not eat from the tree was given to man, even before woman was created. (Genesis 2:15 the command is given; Genesis 2:21 is where woman is created.) The implication on Adam is that he was to lead his wife in God’s ways, but when she sins, he says nothing to stop her, despite being “there with her” – Genesis 3:9.
I am not trying to suppress women at all. I believe that by bearing God’s image, women and men are of equal value and worth to God and to society. But scripture also makes clear that men and women are created different and with different roles in the world. There are plenty of things in the Bible I wish I could change – homosexuality being one of them – but we don’t get to change God’s Word to fit our comfort. And if we say that God’s word is mistaken about some issues, then how do we know we can trust any of it? The cross or resurrection perhaps, maybe that’s a mistake too? I’m just saying that you are treading on thin ice when you decide human emotions and opinions are right and scripture wrong. Admittedly, I know nothing of this writer, Mary Daly, but this sounds an awful lot to me like 2 Timothy 4:3 and it especially scares me when you are teaching this practice of ignoring large portions of scripture to suite ourselves to the next generation of Christians.
Thank you for the article and for bringing about a much needed discussion for us to share in.
Obviously this is a conversation better had over a large coffee in a trendy coffee shop. I could say much more, but I’ll limit it to this:
1. I tend to agree with what others have said that we should be very slow to make these changes given the way Jesus talked about God, his Father.
2. My view of the Bible leaves me uncomfortable changing the past word choices to appease our perceived “enlightenment” or “getting beyond” anything. This could go a long way and seems like an extremely unwise way to handle the text.
3. It seems that our Christian sisters may feel disrespected or undervalued. Men, we must do something about this because in no way does the Bible teach men that this is how women should be treated. There are many instances in the Bible of women being treated poorly, but these are descriptive, not prescriptive. In addition, during these narratives of the poor treatment of women, we often see things go very badly, and that should be the lesson. We can learn a lot more from the history than we will by changing the authoritative word of God.
4. I question the willingness of anybody (including myself) to submit to the authority of Scripture when they desire to change the words of long understood meaning. In these time when we rebel against the Word of God, we really need to ask ourselves if there is something more going on.
5. Although I have not yet read it, based on what my wife has told me, this might be a good time to plug Susan Issac’s book, ANGRY CONVERSATIONS WITH GOD.
Let’s do this again, but next time over good coffee, and maybe a danish.
Something my mom always said keeps going through my mind as I read all of these posts, “Actions speak louder than words” I will return to the Christian bricks and mortar church (notice I did not say Christian Faith) when seeing a woman in the pulpit, as Deacons, Evangelists,is commonplace unworthy of note. Then I will know that the effects of Patriarchy on women-of-faith are loosening. I still do not know how I can be part of a religion that blames the fall of humankind (sin) on women in its Creation story…. thats a hard one…..
1st Corinthians 15 lays the blame squarely on Adam, not Eve. I urge you not to decide whether to become part of Christianity because elements of the story aren’t too your liking, but because either it’s true or it isn’t.
This is often a top notch blog page. I’ve been back more than once during the last 7 days and wish to sign up for your rss feed making use of Google but can’t understand how to do it exactly. Would you know of any tutorials?
I stumbled upon this page while Googling “Mary Daly” + “Beyond God the Father”, and I’m gladdened to see Christians recognizing and grappling with this institutionalized oppression of women, an oppression that reaches so deep it pervades our language. For, if anything, language is the ultimate institution of meaning-making. And wreathing God in the symbols of fatherhood and masculinity (even if this was something Jesus purportedly encouraged) is to create a finite image of God that valorizes one half of the human species and leaves the other half out in the cold. Truly, this image of God reflects more saliently on the institutionalized power that men have wielded over women than on who/what God is. The gendering of God as male is an extension of the ways in which men and women are stereotyped, with men claiming a dominant, aggressive, rational role and women being relegated to a submissive, emotive, passive role. And don’t even get me started on how this gender binary oppresses and causes violence to people who don’t conform to gender norms (see: Boys Don’t Cry).
To those posters on this thread who think that Scriptures reveal God as male, I would question why you conceive of God’s gender as an objective fact to be accepted or rejected. It seems to me that objective facts are the realm of science, whereas religion is a deeply personal endeavor in _relating_ to the Absolute and Transcendant. If relating to God the Father works for some men and women, great, but don’t deny the symbolic violence that God-the-Father-as-institutionalized-sexism has wreaked on everyone.
Thank you.