Dec 02
On not sexing the Spirit
I heard again today someone referring to the possibility of speaking about the Holy Spirit as feminine. Now at one level I have no problems with referring to our Creator as the one who mothers us, or to God’s good self by the pronoun “she”, although I think that our traditional Christian readings of scripture mean that this will of necessity always be contextual, occasional, and supplementary to the more common use of masculine pronouns.
My objection is that if we speak of the Spirit as feminine, whether primarily or exclusively, we are beginning to gender God’s being, and the implication is that Father and Son are masculine. The mediaeval tradition, by contrast, in tending to refer to Jesus as our Mother, epitomised by Julian of Norwich and St Anselm, is far more constructive, both because it treats the Godhead as incorporating qualities we might otherwise assign to different genders, and because it underlines the metaphorical nature of our language about God. It is, arguably, also more of a piece with the feminine personification of Wisdom in the OT being identified with the creative Word who is the second person of the Trinity.
Feminine pronouns may rightly be used of God when exploring some of the feminine metaphors for God in Scripture, and they are a useful corrective to those who mistakenly take God to be masculine rather than beyond gender. But assigning them primarily or exclusively to the Holy Spirit will do the opposite, and entrench gender in people’s conceptions of God.
I have sometimes found myself regretting that (a) the tradition of referring to priests as “Father” was not widespread in the Anglican Church, and (b) that we didn’t start using this as a form of address for women ordained to the priesthood. I hope, when we start ordaining women as bishops, that the liturgies of ordination will continue to address the bishop as “Reverend Father in God”. I can’t think of a more powerful way to raise awareness of metaphor and stimulate a deeper appreciation of the ungendered Fatherhood of God.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:04 am
Doug, do you have any insight into references to the shekinah as the female manifestation of God’s presence? I’ve come across a couple of mentions now that this was a common thought in Judaism.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:29 am
Sorry, I have no idea - although I think I’d be surprised.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:14 am
Doug,
I just finished reading an essay on this very thing, that to assign the spirit a feminine gender would entrench the subordinate nature of femininity, when, by contrast, recognizing the creative and life-giving quality of the female in God, would assign a powerful role of femaleness to God him/herself. Hmm. Its a puzzle how God could create woman if femaleness was not a part of the nature of God. It must be. That is, not the feminine, as a feminine face, but that the creator is both male and female, or, of course, beyond male and female, but also inclusive of the both.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
[...] Language and the Gender of God Filed under: Theology — Derek the Ænglican @ 7:21 am Interesting thoughts from [...]
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Well, in Matthew 23:9 RSV it says “call no man your father on earth”, which is of course why Christians who obey the Bible (which apparently did not include Cranmer) do not call their pastors “Father”. But hold on, it doesn’t say anything about calling women “Father”, does it? Well, it should do, for there is in fact no noun “man”, only an implied object which must be gender generic. So, sorry Doug, you are not allowed to call women priests and bishops “Father” either. “Mother”, perhaps, but in that case, Mother Doug, that had better also be gender generic.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
[...] see Doug trying both to fix metaphor and transcend metaphor through a re-energizing of the metaphor. Yes, bls, Doug’s connection of mother language with [...]
December 4th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Jeez, what a fine post. I’ve never heard it said better, in short compass or long.
I also think Mary Daley knew what she was talking about when she said that the God of the Bible is a “male mother,” id est, a mother after a male’s heart. But of course, it’s not that simple.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:18 am
[...] a generally humourous comment on this earlier post, Peter Kirk says: Well, in Matthew 23:9 RSV it says “call no man your father [...]
December 5th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
My wife tells me that with maturity I appear to have been exploring something she calls ‘my feminine side’. Does that mean under certain circumstances I might be Ms/Mrs Peter Davies? On second thoughts, I might live to regret this post!