God's gender

[mlcampbell]

I was at Borders bookstore the other day, looking at new calendars to give my mom for Christmas, and I happened to stumble across one that was entitled something like “Goddess,” or “Sacred Feminine,” or something close to that–anyway, the point being was that it was all paganish and new agey. Almost every time I run across that kind of nonsense, I feel repulsed and disgusted by it. The whole “Goddess” movement is, to me, really an abomination, because, as one facet of the more general neo-pagan movement, it tries “mythologize” the divine; in other words, it represents a de-evolution in humanity’s conception of divinity.

But here’s my question: According to the Catechism,

In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the differences between the sexes. (CCC 370)

However, there are many Renaissance paintings of God the Father–who, according to the above passage, is neither man nor woman–as an old man with a grey beard. If I am entitled to be offended by new-age female images of the divinity, such as those in the calendars I was talking about, why, on the other hand, is it okay within our religion to present God as a man within, say, the Sistine Chapel? Shouldn’t I be either offended by both or not offeneded at all?

I’m not trying to assert that the Church is anti-female (in fact, I think it’s the most pro-female organization on the planet). I’m just trying to understand what I think to be a possible contradiction or inconsistency in my own line of reasoning. Any help would be much appreciated!

 

[George_Craft]

Hi mlcampbell,

I hope this might help a little.

Jesus told us God is Spirit:
Joh 4:24 God is a spirit: and they that adore him must adore him in spirit and in truth.

Jesus always referred to God as Father:
Mat 5:16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Mat 5:48 Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.
Mat 6:9 Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.

These are only some verses from Matthew, but there are many many more that refer to God as our Father.

With love and prayers that you have a blessed Christmas
George

 

[mlcampbell]

Hi mlcampbell,

I hope this might help a little.

Jesus told us God is Spirit:
Joh 4:24 God is a spirit: and they that adore him must adore him in spirit and in truth.

Jesus always referred to God as Father:
Mat 5:16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Mat 5:48 Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.
Mat 6:9 Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.

These are only some verses from Matthew, but there are many many more that refer to God as our Father.

With love and prayers that you have a blessed Christmas
George

Well, let me clarify a bit what I’m trying to get across here. I understand that paintings depicting God the Father as a man with a grey beard do not suggest we think God the Father is a literal dude up in heaven (that’s what Mormons believe). That is, I understand, as the verse you quoted from the Gospel of John says, that “God is spirit”; He doesn’t have a body, I know that. But the fact that we believe God is pure spirit doesn’t solve our problem. We can’t take the fact that the verse tells us He doesn’t have a body to mean He isn’t masculine. Theoretically, the verse could simply be implying that God the Father is a pure masculine spirit.

Jesus’ usage of the term “father” in all those passages from Scripture do not imply that God the Father is not a mother either. “Father,” I feel, ought to be understood in a figurative or analogous sense, not a literal one. God, as the Truth and perfection of all things, represents the totality of human experience: if motherhood exists on earth as a distinct reality, then He obviously created it. In that sense, motherhood (in addition to fatherhood), as a concept, must derive from and find its highest expression within God. Therefore, God is also mother.

So I’m still left with my original question.

 

[Nullasalus]

But here’s my question: According to the Catechism,

In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the differences between the sexes. (CCC 370)

However, there are many Renaissance paintings of God the Father–who, according to the above passage, is neither man nor woman–as an old man with a grey beard. If I am entitled to be offended by new-age female images of the divinity, such as those in the calendars I was talking about, why, on the other hand, is it okay within our religion to present God as a man within, say, the Sistine Chapel? Shouldn’t I be either offended by both or not offeneded at all?

My take on it would be this:

Notice that even in the CCC 370 description, the pure spirit God is called He. ‘He is neither man nor woman.’ Then why is He called He? Well, because for whatever reason - I’m sure some long, detailed defenses could be given - that is how God has chosen to interact with humanity. As a Father. It’s distinct to our (humanity’s) relationship with God, rather than God’s sole characteristic or relationship.

Think of a single parent - in this case, a father. You could argue that the single parent is filling (or trying to fill) two roles - that of both a mother and a father. At the same time, the child’s relationship with the parent is child<->father. What roles the father is a source for does not change the distinction of the actual relationship.

I do see what you’re saying about motherhood finding its source in God. Honestly, I think the best reply is that whenever a depiction or description of God is given, it’s best to understand what is being communicated, and what is being… well, understood. When it comes to female depictions of God, I can’t help but feel that the actual depiction of God comes in a distant second in intention. Mind you, there’s other abuses of depiction as well.

 

[mlcampbell]

My take on it would be this:

Notice that even in the CCC 370 description, the pure spirit God is called He. ‘He is neither man nor woman.’ Then why is He called He? Well, because for whatever reason - I’m sure some long, detailed defenses could be given - that is how God has chosen to interact with humanity. As a Father. It’s distinct to our (humanity’s) relationship with God, rather than God’s sole characteristic or relationship.

Think of a single parent - in this case, a father. You could argue that the single parent is filling (or trying to fill) two roles - that of both a mother and a father. At the same time, the child’s relationship with the parent is child<->father. What roles the father is a source for does not change the distinction of the actual relationship.

Thanks, I like the way to put it. Let me see if I’m getting you correctly. Are you saying that, while God is indeed the perfection of both fatherhood and motherhood (He’s suprasexually androgynous), we call Him “Father” because that is the term that is most informative? In other words, ontologically, He’s the source and summit of both fatherhood and motherhood, but fatherhood is the most usefull image to attach to Him because His role in our world makes the term “Father” more appropriate than “Mother”?

 

[mlcampbell]

When it comes to female depictions of God, I can’t help but feel that the actual depiction of God comes in a distant second in intention. Mind you, there’s other abuses of depiction as well.

What exactly do you mean by this?

 

[Nullasalus]

Thanks, I like the way to put it. Let me see if I’m getting you correctly. Are you saying that, while God is indeed the perfection of both fatherhood and motherhood (He’s suprasexually androgynous), we call Him “Father” because that is the term that is most informative? In other words, ontologically, He’s the source and summit of both fatherhood and motherhood, but fatherhood is the most usefull image to attach to Him because His role in our world makes the term “Father” more appropriate than “Mother”?

I actually have some confusion when it comes to ‘perfection’ (trying to start another thread about that, but I’m having problems posting), but otherwise that sounds accurate. God as the source of these aspects and these goods, while at the same time having a particular relationship with humanity that was/is best expressed as Father (and therefore, He.)

What exactly do you mean by this?

I think at times the goal has more to do with ideas of fairness, empowering women, or other goals rather than depicting God. However, that doesn’t always have to be the case - that’s why I mentioned the importance of understanding and communication.

 

[dafalax]

I think this is interesting to note; God did not give birth to the universe he generated it through an act of will. This seems like a more masculine act than one of a feminine mother.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s always been my understanding that God is real, and not a mere gramatical entity. That being the case, God might have a sex, but not a gender.

 

[shirleytowers]

God goes by father because in our cultures the father is usually the more dominant parent, especially in the patriarchal societies of the Middle East. Gender is about roles in sexal reproduction. God does not reproduce sexually, so he has no need of gender. But can you imagine if God had chosen to send us a feminine savior? The culture would barely allow her out of the house, let alone inside the temple debating with the learned men.

He is called the Father and came to us as a male because that is what we would accept as authoritative.

 

[mlcampbell]

I think this is interesting to note; God did not give birth to the universe he generated it through an act of will. This seems like a more masculine act than one of a feminine mother.

Very interesting. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger says almost the exact same thing in his book entitled God and the World:

“…whenever images of the mother goddess have been used in worship, they have so altered people’s thinking about creation that creation has been transformed into emanation and birth, and thus, almost of necessity, pantheistic models of divinity have been developed. The God who is portrayed in the image of the Father, on the contrary, makes things by means of the Word–and that is the point at which the specific distinction between the act of creation and the creature becomes quite clear.”

 

[mlcampbell]

It’s always been my understanding that God is real, and not a mere gramatical entity. That being the case, God might have a sex, but not a gender.

Huh?

 

[matthias]

I’d put it this way ,mlcampbell. I don’t call you billy boy or chatty cathy or mr/miss Magoo.

God has revealed himself in Holy Scripture. We can and sometimes do give him titles not included in sacred scripture but they are not the same.

If you walked up to me and said, “hello… call me cathy”, and I said… “well hello there Joe…”, It would be a bit rude!

We could get into the complicated mess of understanding what gender might mean in a divine nature and how God the Father could be father to the Son without being “male” etc.

But honestly it isn’t necessary. God said… “Hello… Call me Father”.

Don’t call him mother!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Huh?

“Gender” is an attribute that applies to words (gramatical entities), not to people, animals, or God.

Most nouns in English are neuter gender. But in other languages almost all nouns have gender. For examle in Spanish a table (“mesa”) has the feminine gender, and it is proper to use the feminine article (“la”) and not the masculine (“el”) when referring to a table.

To use “gender” to apply to a person is actually somewhat insulting, since it implies the person is a mere word, not a real being.

If you want a humorous illustration, google Mark Twain’s “That Awful German Language.”

 

[mlcampbell]

“Gender” is an attribute that applies to words (gramatical entities), not to people, animals, or God.

Most nouns in English are neuter gender. But in other languages almost all nouns have gender. For examle in Spanish a table (“mesa”) has the feminine gender, and it is proper to use the feminine article (“la”) and not the masculine (“el”) when referring to a table.

To use “gender” to apply to a person is actually somewhat insulting, since it implies the person is a mere word, not a real being.

If you want a humorous illustration, google Mark Twain’s “That Awful German Language.”

Ohhh. Okay, I got ya. You mean gender in the linguistic sense. Sorry about the confusion.

 

[mlcampbell]

But honestly it isn’t necessary. God said… “Hello… Call me Father”.

Don’t call him mother!

That’s exactly the point I was making. Jesus addressed God as “Father” and instructed us to do so as well. Therefore, the word “Father” is non-exchangeable; it’s the only name we can give Him. I agreed with that and always will, because Jesus said so. My original confusion consisted only in why this is so (why Jesus chose to call God “Father”), seeing as how God is not purely masculine, but is the source of both masculinity and femininity–that is, God embodies both the masculine and the feminine, and yet, we refer to Him as “Father” anyway. “What’s the rationale?” was my question.

 

[rwoehmke]

The actions of God going all the way back to Genesis seem in my opinion to be the actions of a male. The prophets of the Old Testament spoke in figures of God as Husband and Israel as Wife. Paul speaks of Jesus as male spouse and the new Israel, the Church as His Spouse. He may be spirit and ungendered, but has from time immemorial been understood as male. To some extent, I expect this was a reaction against those ancient religions that had a goddess as the focus of their worship.

 

[mlcampbell]

The actions of God going all the way back to Genesis seem in my opinion to be the actions of a male. The prophets of the Old Testament spoke in figures of God as Husband and Israel as Wife. Paul speaks of Jesus as male spouse and the new Israel, the Church as His Spouse. He may be spirit and ungendered, but has from time immemorial been understood as male. To some extent, I expect this was a reaction against those ancient religions that had a goddess as the focus of their worship.

Actually, there are at least a couple instances within the Old Testament where God is described with feminine/motherly language.

Is 66:13–As one whom the mother caresseth, so will I comfort you, and you shall be comforted in Jerusalem

Is 49:14-15–And Sion said: The Lord hath forsaken me, and the Lord hath forgotten me. Can a woman forget her infant, so as not to have pity on the son of her womb? and if she should forget, yet will not I forget thee.

So, while the way in which God interacts with the world is best described using masculine imagery–hence, the reason why Jesus told us to call Him “Father”–I think it’s nonetheless important to at least understand that God embodies femininity as well, and that, ultimately, there is in God no distinction between the sexes. Otherwise, we would be forced to admit the logic of Mary Daly: “If God is male, then the male is God.”

 

[Cam-masta]

Interesting and thoughtful responses on this thread. This is a divine mystery, bringing to mind the lines to a well known hymn by Walter C. Smith: “Immortal, Invisible, God only wise. In light inaccessible, hid from our eyes…” Think about this: we haven’t even scratched the surface when it comes to God. What has been revealed is like a speck of dust in an infinite universe. That is why it is so sacred… our Faith isn’t for the tame of heart. There are Fundamentalists who say that God is a man, and liberals who overemphasis the feminine and they are both wrong.

 

[Cam-masta]

I’d put it this way ,mlcampbell. I don’t call you billy boy or chatty cathy or mr/miss Magoo.

God has revealed himself in Holy Scripture. We can and sometimes do give him titles not included in sacred scripture but they are not the same.

If you walked up to me and said, “hello… call me cathy”, and I said… “well hello there Joe…”, It would be a bit rude!

We could get into the complicated mess of understanding what gender might mean in a divine nature and how God the Father could be father to the Son without being “male” etc.

But honestly it isn’t necessary. God said… “Hello… Call me Father”.

Don’t call him mother!

Well stated. God was always referred to as Father, until recent times (see radical feminism)