It's the anti-maleness!
After I made my last post I got really busy with running errands and then working all day today. But I had lots of time to think about the issue some more. I kept wondering why this is bothering me so much. I mean, for one thing, God doesn't have a gender so it doesn't *really* matter one way or the other. And how I interract with God is a personal thing so it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about it. It's just their opinion.
So why does it bother me so much? And by "it" I mean the idea that you can't refer to God as male. (A friend suggested this was just a hypothetical feminist view when, on the contrary, I've heard from two separate sources recently that the use of masculine terms for God in certain seminaries is strictly verboten.)
Then it hit me. It is the generalization that merely mentioning something as male means it is bad. Male = bad. As a mother of three sons, that was what was tripping me up. It's the throwing the baby out with the bathwater again. Now I can just hear "oh but the male image of God has done so much damage to women and society as a whole for thousands of years". Sigh. I don't disagree with that. But I would say to that that the Bible was written by men at a time when the culture was very male-dominated. It doesn't surprise me a bit that the Bible is one-sided in that way. But I don't blame God for that. I also refuse to blame all males because of what those males did. And yes, many men today continue to marginalize women in some ways. But not all do and it is unfair to generalize that a male image has to be bad. To say that my sons need to bear the guilt for what was done in the past simply by virtue of their maleness is just as bad as women who are offended at the idea that we bear the guilt for what Eve did. Both ideas are misplaced.
It makes me really sad that it has gotten to the point that father figures are no longer considered something to be admired. Are we not to take comfort in supportive and loving fathers?
I'll let you have your Divine Feminine, but I refuse to give up my Heavenly Father.
So why does it bother me so much? And by "it" I mean the idea that you can't refer to God as male. (A friend suggested this was just a hypothetical feminist view when, on the contrary, I've heard from two separate sources recently that the use of masculine terms for God in certain seminaries is strictly verboten.)
Then it hit me. It is the generalization that merely mentioning something as male means it is bad. Male = bad. As a mother of three sons, that was what was tripping me up. It's the throwing the baby out with the bathwater again. Now I can just hear "oh but the male image of God has done so much damage to women and society as a whole for thousands of years". Sigh. I don't disagree with that. But I would say to that that the Bible was written by men at a time when the culture was very male-dominated. It doesn't surprise me a bit that the Bible is one-sided in that way. But I don't blame God for that. I also refuse to blame all males because of what those males did. And yes, many men today continue to marginalize women in some ways. But not all do and it is unfair to generalize that a male image has to be bad. To say that my sons need to bear the guilt for what was done in the past simply by virtue of their maleness is just as bad as women who are offended at the idea that we bear the guilt for what Eve did. Both ideas are misplaced.
It makes me really sad that it has gotten to the point that father figures are no longer considered something to be admired. Are we not to take comfort in supportive and loving fathers?
I'll let you have your Divine Feminine, but I refuse to give up my Heavenly Father.
Labels: Feminism
posted by Mama G @ 5:21 PM
3 Comments:
At 6:59 PM,
Justmakingitup said…
Here's my problem - you are making the assumption that people who do not like referring to God as male feel that way because they think male means bad. I think that is an unfair assumption. I don't like the God as male thing not because I equate 'male' with 'bad' or 'evil' but because it is exclusionary.
You may find the God/father image comforting, but I know of many women who were turned off religion by that very image. There was nothing in it to speak to them. Now, of course, tossing out the masculine divine in favour of the feminine divine isn't better.
I like the way my synagogue does it, by simply removing any direct gender reference. Much of the prayer is in the second person - 'you.' But where the prayer book says, "Father" the rabbi says "parent." Where it says, "king" the rabbi says "Ruler." I like the inclusiveness of this - thenyou just imagine what works for you.
This, of course, isn't limited to religion and what to call God. It is part of the whole larger language debate, like using 'he' as the correct third person, as in "When a doctor writes a prescription, he must make it legible." To object to that isn't rejecting men, but rejecting the idea that the masculine is the correct default. And rejecting God as male is the same thing.
N.
www.justmakingitup.wordpress.com
At 11:57 PM,
jfield said…
As a student (unfortunately for several of the past few years) at the left coast "left wing" seminary I haven't really seen the problem you have been told of.
I am part of the "male minority" at UU seminary and the father of sons but I am not having the problem you are considering.
If you look at the hymn Bring Many Names you might get an idea of how many people deal with gender and the divine. It has definitely been used in chapel and orientation in the past few years. I would say the more current concern is the way to find language that is adequately inclusive of transgender people.
At 6:17 PM,
Mystical Seeker said…
For what it's worth, my girlfriend, who is not particularly religious but who attends church with me, likes to say "Our Father" during the Lord's Prayer part of service, although she also prefers to say "Thine is the Presence" rather than "Thine is the Kingdom". The reason she likes "Father" is because she didn't grow up with a father in her family and she finds it comforting.
As for me, I often like to think of God as female, and I am male. But I do use the traditional language in the Lord's Prayer that I was brought up with, because that is what I know and am comfortable with--so I use Father and Kingdom in that prayer. That doesn't change the fact that I generally like to think of God as female. Gender language is all a metaphor anyway for an ineffable divine reality.
Ultimately, we have to assign some kind of gender to a personal God when conceive of him/her, because as humans with our limited imaginations and our limited language, that's just what we have to do. We can't call God "it", if we believe in a personal God. So I think for individuals, in how they relate to God, we should all be fine with whatever language each are comfortable with. On the other hand, when used in worship services or liturgy, I think that some kidn of balance between male and female language, or the use of gender-neutral language when possible, is necessary in order to be fair to all those who listen and participate in the act of group worship.
Anyway, that's my take on it.
Post a Comment
<< Home