Should we stop referring to God as ‘he’?
Last calendar week the polling company YouGov published the results of a survey asking Christians what they thought about God's gender. Their 'shocking' discovery is that very few concur with Ariana Grande's claim in her latest single:
With Ariana Grande'south recent single being entitled "God is a Adult female" a new YouGov survey reveals that British Christians aren't so sure most that: in fact, just ane% believe that God is female.
There are some bones bug with the report of the poll itself—the main one being that YouGov don't give any clear indication as to their sample methodology and what they mean by 'Christian' when they claim 'Christians believe that…' Are these people who are self identifying? Were they sampling exterior churches on a Lord's day? Did they inquire whatsoever questions about actual practice and attendance? Without this information, the 'Christian' claim is fairly meaningless.
Despite the YouGov headline, Premier correctly reported the less exciting but more than authentic observation that 'Almost British Christians believe God does not have a human gender identity'. But Olivia Rudgard of the Telegraph has managed to make more of a story from the survey, past getting annotate from Rachel Treweek, the Bishop of Gloucester:
The Church of England should avoid only calling God "he", a bishop has said, equally a survey found that young Christians recall God is male. The Rt Revd Rachel Treweek, bishop of Gloucester, the Church building of England'due south start female diocesan bishop, said: "I don't want young girls or young boys to hear united states constantly refer to God as he," calculation that it was important to be "mindful of our linguistic communication".
She raised concerns that non-Christians could feel alienated from the Church building if its public pronouncements used solely male person linguistic communication to describe God.
"For me particularly in a bigger context, in all things, whether information technology'due south that you go to a website and you come across pictures of all white people, or whether yous go to a website and see the use of 'he' when we could use 'god', all of those things are giving subconscious letters to people, and so I am very hot near saying tin can we always look at what we are communicating," she said.
It is worth observing the progress of language hither, as a sobering lesson on what happens in the publicity process. Offset, the survey finds that virtually 'Christians' don't believe God is gendered. Then 'nearly one-half' believe God is male; then 'young Christians think…'; and finally 'The Church should non apply male language'. In subsequent (copy-cat) pieces, Rachel Treweek goes from existence the first female diocesan to the first female person bishop, and this is at present a 'growing problem'—and so who knows what the story would wait similar with a few more repeats. And apparently this is a problem of perception in mission and evangelism (without any evidence cited) then we take moved rather a long fashion from the original survey.
The reason why Olivia Rudgard went to Rachel Treweek with this survey is because information technology is a reply of comments that she made in 2015, when there was again quite a lot of coverage. Simply then and now, the headline-grabbing stories collapse a series of separate though related questions about God and gender:
- Does Scripture claim God is male person?
- Are there both male and female metaphors for God?
- Are we at liberty to change them?
- Should we use feminine pronouns for God?
- Is this a missional issue as claimed?
As I accept noted previously in this discussion, the most prominent images in Scripture of God are the male images, but the female images are not absent-minded. At that place is quite a good list of them hither; the main references are Hosea 11.iii–4 and thirteen.8, Isaiah 42.14, 49.fifteen and 66.thirteen, Deut 32.xi-12 and 18. Perhaps the about striking ones in the NT are of the kingdom of God being like a women kneading dough (Lk. xiii:20-21), God being similar a woman who has lost a coin (Luke 15.eight–10) and Jesus likening himself to a mother hen (Matt 23.37, Luke 13.34). Most hitting of all every bit a female epitome in ministry is Paul's description of himself as a women in labour (Gal 4.xix).
Underlying this is a very clear claim: God does not have a gender. Although the gendered identity of humanity has its origins in our cosmos in the image of God, Gen 1 is very articulate that neither gender on its own is the prototype of God:
So God created man beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Gen 1.27)
In a civilisation and context where gods where male or female person, and where for the most role the male gods conquered and controlled the female, this is a striking statement. If we think that the male more truly represents the 'image and likeness' of God than the female, we are contradicting a central claim of the biblical revelation almost God.
This connects with other central claims about the nature of God. In the word with the woman at the well in John 4, Jesus states that 'God is spirit' and, despite debates in Judaism about whether God has a trunk (following from OT language nigh the arms, mitt, eyes and fifty-fifty nostrils of God), Christian theology has consistently believed that (in the words of Article I of the XXXIX) God is 'without parts or passions'. Gender (or, more accurately, 'sex') is a bodily reality; we are sexed as male and female because nosotros have male or female person bodies, and if God is not bodily then God cannot be sexed.
If, according to Scripture, God is not male, the question then follows every bit to why most of the images of God are male in Scripture, and whether these are a reflection of the civilisation of the time and then that they might be open to renegotiation.
New Testament scholar Jon Parker observes something significant about male language in the cultural context of the biblical writings:
To me, the use of masculine language in the ancient world has less to practice with "patriarchy" than it does the presumption of the gendered nature of fruitfulness. The masculine was the first stage of progeny. There were (and are) plenty of things to celebrate about the feminine in Scripture. For example, when it comes to long-suffering toil, the exclusively feminine experience of bearing and birthing is well-nigh always reached for, cf. Num 11:12; John xvi:ii-21; Gal 4:19.
Past dissimilarity, the masculine "sowed the seed." Of course, we now know that men and women contributed equal Deoxyribonucleic acid, but they didn't. In ancient observation of the world: seed + soil/womb = life. Of grade, likewise, this is metaphorical when speaking of God. Only when thinking about the One who created/sourced all things, information technology was, I recall very hard for whatever ancient Mediterranean person (Greek or Jewish; male or female) to think about that being as feminine. It wouldn't make sense. That this sense of the first stage of progeny was then used past many to wrongly (and unbiblically) promote men over women is abreast the point in why the linguistic communication was used, I think.
To reflect God'southward nature equally "unsourced source" is still a good reason to use the masculine almost God, despite abusive patriarchy spoiling that language (which of grade cannot be ignored as nosotros try to speak almost God today).
But, as Alastair Roberts points out, the differences between male person and female—and particularly between the significant of 'female parent' and 'father'—and not but contextual, but relate to a fundamental asymmetry in the way that the ii function in parenting.
The Scriptures employ feminine imagery and metaphors of God, just it primarily identifies God using masculine pronouns, names, and imagery. Male and female imagery isn't interchangeable.
The fact that God is chosen 'Father' tin't exist substituted past 'Mother' without changing meaning, nor can it exist gender neutralized to 'Parent' without loss of meaning. Fathers and mothers are not interchangeable, only relate to their offspring in dissimilar means. A mother's relationship with her kid is a more immediate, naturally given matrimony of shared bodies. It is more clearly characterized past close empathetic identification. A father's relationship with his child, by dissimilarity, is characterized by a 'material hiatus' and more typically involves a greater degree of 'continuing over against' the child. While maternity is more naturally given and more than rooted in the body through the procedure of gestation and nursing, fatherhood is established principally past covenant commitment. If he is to be more than a mere inseminator, a man must lovingly commit himself to his wife and offspring. The different nature of the father's relationship with his child also ways that he more readily represents constabulary and authority to the child: he can stand up over against the kid to a caste that the child'south mother can't.
All of this matters when we are speaking about God. A shift beyond biblical feminine metaphors and imagery to feminine identification of God volition have a noticeable effect upon our vision of God, our ideas of where God stands in relation to us, the style that nosotros excogitate of the Creator-beast distinction, and the sort of linguistic communication that we use when speaking about sin, separation from God, etc.
Let's recover the feminine imagery of Scripture, but let's practice so in a conscientious and theologically principled fashion, rather than presuming that whatsoever symbol or language we cull to use for God is equally appropriate every bit any other.
Given that the ecumenically agreed Campaigner'south Creed declares faith in 'God, the Male parent almighty, creator of heaven and earth' and in 'Jesus Christ, God's only Son', and given that the Lord's Prayer addresses God as 'Our Male parent', and then to start irresolute this linguistic communication touches on primal issues of confessional faith, rooted in the consistent testimony of Scripture. I confess I have never been a fan of the New Zealand Prayer Book re-write of the Lord'due south Prayer, even though it has been widely used:
Eternal Spirit,
Earth-maker, Pain-bearer, Life-giver,
Source of all that is and that shall be,
Begetter and Mother of us all,
Loving God, in whom is heaven…
Is it possible or helpful to apply feminine pronouns when referring to God? Information technology is worth noting that Rachel Treweek (and Jo Bailey Wells, also quoted in the Telegraph article) do not advocate this; if God is not gendered/sexed, and so their suggestion is to avert using pronouns at all. Just this is extremely difficult in ordinary speech, and the biblical texts don't appear to have any qualms nearly information technology. The problem that we have in English language (and in many languages) is the lack of a UGASP—an UnGender Assigned Atypical Pronoun (in French information technology is common to use on which is such a pronoun). In other words, it is very difficult to refer to an individual without specifying his or her (there, you see?) sex. If we telephone call God 'Father' and Jesus 'Son', it would be nonsense not to utilize a masculine pronoun. Some merits that the Hebrew for 'Spirit' (ruach) is feminine, which gives us a precedent for using a feminine pronoun (as, curiously enough) I experience from the person leading worship yesterday. Merely it is well established that grammatical case does not signal personal gender; in whatsoever caseruach is occasionally masculine (Ps 51.12 and elsewhere); in the NT the Greek termpneuma is neutral; and in fact use of a feminine pronoun draws attention to the question of gender, and if anything suggests that God is indeed gendered, rather than suggesting that God is beyond gender.
Finally, information technology is worth reflecting on whether this is indeed a pressing pastoral or missional result. Kate Wharton offers customary insight and common sense in the earlier give-and-take:
We need to make use of the very helpful feminine/maternal imagery we detect in Scripture, perhaps most of all in pastoral situations where someone struggles for whatever reason with the masculine imagery. Having said that, I take never been in a pastoral situation where someone has struggled with calling God 'Begetter' and concluded up instead calling God 'Female parent' – rather they have worked through what the upshot is for them, what that means for their human relationship with their earthly male parent, and how they can most helpfully know and relate to God equally Father, understanding him to be the perfect instance of fathering.
And, going back to the YouGov survey, information technology is striking that more women than men think of God as male person, which doesn't appear to have stopped them coming to faith and coming to church building. One of the challenges to this claim most mission is the still high proportion of women in churches which not merely lean towards the masculine images of God, but believe that ministry building and leadership should be primarily male.
And does it really help the crusade of women in leadership in the Church to keep to be connected with this argue? I of my friends on Facebook has hosted some fairly unpleasant comments in reaction to a perception that this effect is about rejecting biblical language and biblical ideas about the nature of God—fifty-fifty though a careful reading of the comments made in the paper article doesn't really say that. But given that thisdoesn't appear to be a serious missional issue, is it time to move on to other things?
Come up and bring together us for the secondFestival of Theology on Wednesday October 17th!
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance ground. If you take valued this mail service, would you considerdonating £1.twenty a month to back up the production of this weblog?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or echo donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Expert comments that engage with the content of the postal service, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek first to sympathise, and so to be understood. Make the about charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view argue as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/should-we-stop-referring-to-god-as-he/
0 Response to "Should we stop referring to God as ‘he’?"
Enregistrer un commentaire