« | Main | Hold Me To This »

Monday, April 18, 2005

Comments

Nancy

Instead of "Him" or "It", why not "LORD" or "L-rd"?

jon myers

Timothy P you've said exactly what i've was thinkin when i wrote that post. i'm saying we need another word for God. i am saying we need a fuller expression of God in our language. i don't want to throw out the masculine language of God, but i do want us, especially those in emergent, to capture the rest of God's attributes too. the ones we can capture anyway.

Timothy P.

Yes! And. . .

While I agree that simply using masculine language for God is a misrepresentation of who God is, it is easy to take the other extreme and ignore the masculine image altogether. The truth is, scripture (be it patriarchal or not) does identify God on a regular basis with masculine imagery. What I see the need for is to be careful not to neglect the feminine expressions of God. Jesus spoke of gathering Jerusalem under his wings "like a mother hen." In Hebrew, the word for Spirit "Ruach" is feminine, and often throughout scripture the feminine characteristics of the spirit are emphasized. There are also limitless expressions of God that go beyond gender. God is creator, God is Love, God is healer, God is our Righteousness, God is provider.
But if what we really seek is the fullest expression of God we cannot emphasize some to the exclusion of others. His Fatherhood is just as important as God's Creative nature. Also, to begin to speak of God with a feminine Pronoun takes us to a dangerous place of imposing our views on the scripture. (Though some people argue that is what the writer's of scripture did, we must respect the thousands of years of our faith-history, and trust that God the sustainer has preserved the scripture).

As far as not neglecting God's feminine, and gender-neutral qualities, I am in agreement. As far as saying, "God sustains his/her people" I just can't go there with you. This is made particularly difficult because our language has no gender-neutral/personal pronoun. I just can't call God "it," and it is equally as awkward to type God every time you want to mention (Him).

Philologus

Bob, sorry for the double post but something went wrong when I tried to post the first time. Then I realized I had posted to the wrong person and slightly edited the first line. Please feel free to delete the first post. Thanks!

Philologus

Philologus

Bob,

Interesting post and I somewhat agree with you and on the other hand strongly disagree.

It may be true that God is neither male of female yet he has chosen to reveal Himself through "manhood". Christ did not come into the world as a female but as a male. You also are not considering the fact that God has revealed Himself through the scriptures and the scriptures themselves definitely use "masculine" and NOT feminine terms in the original Greek. The Greek word "Pater" will always mean Father and Father cannot ever be feminine. In I Corinthians 8:6 we are told that to us Christians "yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live." One God....THE FATHER.

It seems to me that your mind is being formed by post-modern thinking and the emerging pagan culture rather than being formed by the word of God. You are wanting to impose human thinking instead of taking up revelation as God has revealed Himself to man. Yes He could have chose to reveal Himself as a She instead of a He BUT He didn't. Either the scriptures are true or not. I would rather err on the side of revealed truth through the scriptures then promote a heretical notion of Divine Persons.

Hope you can see you way clear on this one. I think our image of how we see God is important because it will affect our whole worldview. If you have a view of God other than the one he has revealed then you are worshiping a false God. Not the One who is unchangeable and immutable.

Philologus

Philologus

Mike,

Interesting post and I somewhat agree with you and on the other hand do not. It may be true that God is neither male of female yet he has chosen to reveal Himself through "manhood". Christ did not come into the world as a female but as a male. You also are not considering the fact that God has revealed Himself through the scriptures and the scriptures themselves definitely use "masculine" and NOT feminine terms in the original Greek. The Greek word "Pater" will always mean Father and Father cannot ever be feminine. In I Corinthians 8:6 we are told that to us Christians "yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live." One God....THE FATHER.

It seems to me that your mind is being formed by post-modern thinking and the emerging pagan culture rather than being formed by the word of God. You are wanting to impose human thinking instead of taking up revelation as God has revealed Himself to man. Yes He could have chose to reveal Himself as a She instead of a He BUT He didn't. Either the scriptures are true or not. I would rather err on the side of revealed truth through the scriptures then promote a heretical notion of Divine Persons.

Hope you can see you way clear on this one. I think our image of how we see God is important because it will affect our whole worldview. If you have a view of God other than the one he has revealed then you are worshiping a false God. Not the One who is unchangeable and immutable.

Philologus

susie albert miller

thanks for the courageous amen...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003
My Photo

My Wonderful Wife's Blog

Austin