Masculine God, Feminine Spirit? (Should we think of God as male or female)

Patheos ^ | 02/09/2012 | By Kyle Roberts

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-—those who conceive of the deity as female, are invariably drawn to thinking of creation as birth-giving, thereby effacing the radical distinction between the Uncreated and the created.-—

Yup.

I am curious about your statement regarding God transcending Being and non-being. Can you clarify?

Catholics, in the Scholastic tradition, see God’s Essence as Existence Itself, or Being. Non-being doesn’t exist, except as a logical concept. In that sense, it can be said to exist, and that which exists, even as an idea, must exist in the Mind of God.

[SuzyQue]

“...the radical distinction between the Uncreated and the created.”

David - what is the distinction?

[SkyDancer]

Doesn’t the Bible say that G-d is spirit (not a spirit)?

[Mad Dawg]

We’re talking about masculine, not male; gender, not sex.

THANK you!

[The_Reader_David]

I forget which of the Cappadocian Fathers said “I believe in God, God does not exist.” The point is that when we think of Being (existing) or its negation “non-Being” (not existing) what we think of does not apply to God. The distinction is a merely created one, and not applicable to God. (In the East, we regard “seeing” God’s Essence as anything as mistaken and likely a step on the road to delusion.)

[The_Reader_David]

I think it better to keep silence before that mystery. No explanation of the distinction between the Uncreated and the created will explain it.

[righttackle44]

Why lessen God by considering male or female?

Because it's an important issue. Jesus did not say, "I and the Great Questionably-asexual Divine Being are One." He said, "I and the Father are One." Frankly, I'll take Jesus' word for it over anyone else's.

[lazypadawan]

I always say, a world with boogers and flatulence could never have been created by a woman.

[fatboy]

Westbrook saith:

Systematic Theology is one of the most consistent threats to Living Faith. Faith is not an intellectual exercise, nor an academic pursuit.

No actually the most consistent threat to (Christian) living faith is 1. speaking in public on topics of which one knows nothing about, and 2. Stating opinion as fact.

Before you tell other people what they should do, you might consider finding out what systematic theologuy is all about and learn to spot a liberal by their theology. You might be interested in knowing that a lot of greats in the faith are/were systematic theologians. It is a lack of systematic theology that allows the cults to thrive, the "sign gifters" to do what ever feels right at the moment and in some respects gives Rome her ability to contradict herself theologically and keep her members in line.

I would submit to you that the only consistent threat to the faith is a lack of Biblical literacy.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Good gravy!

[Getready]

I don’t think Jesus referred to himself AS a mother hen, i.e
that he WAS a mother hen, but that the act of protection
and love and nurturing AS SEEN with a Mother Hen is the
way He would love you. Human men also protect their children,
but not necessarily as tender as human woman do.

Using the term “masculine” when referring to God is problematic,
He is much greater than man (immeasurably), but it is a
reasonable way(though certainly incomplete) to describe some of his
attributes. Fortunately He doesn’t alway behave like men, (i.e. He forgives, and
even blesses people who, while on this earth, hate Him(at least
until the final judgement).

[SuzyQue]

OK, David, but it’s not exactly kosher to use a concept to make an argument and then demur when asked to define the concept.

I remain uninformed, and now slightly piqued.

[count-your-change]

“In any case, if one wants to insist that Jesus was “masculine,” remember that Jesus redefines what it means to be a human, and therefore what it means to be male and female. We dare not define Jesus’ “masculinity” in the image of our culture's ideals. Furthermore, if Jesus is “masculine,” then let's agree that the Spirit is “feminine.” We, male and female together, are created in the image of the Triune God; God is not created in our image”.

Well yes, I would insist was masculine. You know beard, son, man, all that. But how “redefine what it means to be human”? People confused humans with cabbages? or chipmunks?

Spirit is feminine? If not masculine why feminine?
Male and female in the image of triune God? We have three heads?

Professors of Theology must feel the need to crank out babble to justify their pay. Better they mopped the floors or bussed tables in the cafeteria.

[stuartcr]

Yet we will continue to fight each other over our beliefs in God...

[jboot]

Speculation in the absence of revelation is dangerous. The "Divine Feminine" appeals greatly to the heterodox, but it takes a mighty excursion of wishful eisegesis to find it in scripture.

In other words, this newchurchgirlyboi clown isn't worthy to tie John Piper's shoes, let alone lecture him about the the Christian "invention" of a masculine God. Yuk.

[Wuli]

The fact that human beings were created in the image and likeness of God, male and female He created them, tells us that both maleness and femaleness are necessary for humans fully to exemplify the image of God. However, God is not bound by our limited conceptions of “male,” “female,” or even “person.” I would agree. And I would disagree with the writer, because I think I am in disagreement with what I believe are his motives - to encourage people to think of G-d as feminine (as well as masculine. But, given the true mystery of G-d that we can not even dare to imagine, wouldn't it be better to think of G-d without gender, and thereby not impose our, human, gender values on G-d? Why not think of G-d as G-d, who is, we are also told, above "gender".

[ArrogantBustard]

It’s not every day you see a guy “make it personal” AND ping the mod to the post in which he does it.

[ravenwolf]

Any one who has to even wonder about it, much less deny it does not believe in God any way so why even bother with it.

[The_Reader_David]

I’m sorry, but the Eastern in Eastern Orthodox Christianity is a bit stronger than just simple geography. I sometimes like to tell people I’m a adherent of an Eastern religion, and when they ask which one, replying “Christianity”. (Look up the word “apophatic”. It won’t explain the radical distinction between the Uncreated and the created, but you’ll understand why I’m wrote as I did, and won’t attempt explanation.)