B
Benay
Guest
I apologize in advance if this question is in the wrong sub-forum. I know it belongs in apologetics but don’t know which to use.
Scot Hahn and Pope John Paul II talk about God as a covenant family of Father, Son and the love they have for each other (Holy Spirit).
I don’t mean to be offensive, but this seems to be an exclusively male family. As a woman, I have a hard time with this perspective. I feel excluded, as usual. Our God is said to be exclusively male, and our Church heirarchy is exclusively male. (We are very like Muslims in this regard.)
I realize that Jesus had to be incarnated as a male because no one would have listened if he had come to us as a female. In the Eastern culture of Jesus day (and in fact, most of the world until the 20th century in N. America) women have been considered only as “property” and good only as servants and as boy-baby producers. Canada granted women the legal status of “being a human person” in the 20th century. So if Jesus had been incarnated as a woman no one would have listened to him and his sacrifice would never have been noticed.
Yet Genesis 1:27 clearly states that men and women were created equal. Only later in Genesis is the story that woman was created from man’s rib – the story most quoted.
If both men and women reflect God equally, why are we so exclusivly male oriented? I realize that when Jesus gave us the “Our Father” he was trying to give us a different notion of God, a being who is as loving and as forgiving as a human parent. He had to use the masculine title of “Father” or no one would have paid attention. In that day and culture, no one really wanted a supreme being who was a female. So his use of a masculine title and a masculine God was reasonable for his audience. Are we still limited in our vision of God as “only” a father figure?
Some may respond that The Church is the female “bride” of Christ and that is where we get the feminine. But the Church, like Jesus, is both divine and human. Unlike Jesus, the Church is not God and is not on a par with God. Only the diviine portion of it is from God.
Other’s may argue that we have the Virgin Mary as our mother and that gives us the feminine. But Mary is not God, never was and never will be. To compare her to God is in serious error.
Sorry for the long explanation of my reasoning for questioning why God is seen as an exclusivly male covenant family. For me, a family is incomplete without a mother and daughters. But that’s just because I am a woman. For many people, a father and sons are a “complete” family and are the only ones in a family that count, are important or are a necessity.
I have heard it said that when we address God as “Father” we are really referring to him as “Parent.” Then why not say so?
Sorry for this long confused post. Sorry if it is in the wrong forum. Sorry if I have taken something public that should have been private.
Scot Hahn and Pope John Paul II talk about God as a covenant family of Father, Son and the love they have for each other (Holy Spirit).
I don’t mean to be offensive, but this seems to be an exclusively male family. As a woman, I have a hard time with this perspective. I feel excluded, as usual. Our God is said to be exclusively male, and our Church heirarchy is exclusively male. (We are very like Muslims in this regard.)
I realize that Jesus had to be incarnated as a male because no one would have listened if he had come to us as a female. In the Eastern culture of Jesus day (and in fact, most of the world until the 20th century in N. America) women have been considered only as “property” and good only as servants and as boy-baby producers. Canada granted women the legal status of “being a human person” in the 20th century. So if Jesus had been incarnated as a woman no one would have listened to him and his sacrifice would never have been noticed.
Yet Genesis 1:27 clearly states that men and women were created equal. Only later in Genesis is the story that woman was created from man’s rib – the story most quoted.
If both men and women reflect God equally, why are we so exclusivly male oriented? I realize that when Jesus gave us the “Our Father” he was trying to give us a different notion of God, a being who is as loving and as forgiving as a human parent. He had to use the masculine title of “Father” or no one would have paid attention. In that day and culture, no one really wanted a supreme being who was a female. So his use of a masculine title and a masculine God was reasonable for his audience. Are we still limited in our vision of God as “only” a father figure?
Some may respond that The Church is the female “bride” of Christ and that is where we get the feminine. But the Church, like Jesus, is both divine and human. Unlike Jesus, the Church is not God and is not on a par with God. Only the diviine portion of it is from God.
Other’s may argue that we have the Virgin Mary as our mother and that gives us the feminine. But Mary is not God, never was and never will be. To compare her to God is in serious error.
Sorry for the long explanation of my reasoning for questioning why God is seen as an exclusivly male covenant family. For me, a family is incomplete without a mother and daughters. But that’s just because I am a woman. For many people, a father and sons are a “complete” family and are the only ones in a family that count, are important or are a necessity.
I have heard it said that when we address God as “Father” we are really referring to him as “Parent.” Then why not say so?
Sorry for this long confused post. Sorry if it is in the wrong forum. Sorry if I have taken something public that should have been private.
