HELP! Defending Masculinity of God with stupid Liberal Professor!

[In_Spiration]

Peter Kreeft has a pretty good and simple essay on this. A point of his that I think especially important:

…another essential part of the Christian data is the fact that the Eternal Word chose to incarnate and reveal himself as the Son of the Father and Bridegroom of God’s People. In order for a human to be a son or a bridegroom, he must be male. Jesus Christ is male because he is Son, not vice versa, as feminists assume. His choice does not constitute an insult to women, nor does it imply “an alleged natural superiority of man over woman,” yet it “cannot be disassociated from the economy of salvation.” For it was part of the divine plan from the beginning for God to covenant himself to a people as a groom covenants himself to a bride. Christ is the Bridegroom, the Church is his Bride. This makes us all feminine in relation to God. Women need not become like men when they approach God, but men must become like women, spiritually. All souls are Christ’s brides. [Emphasis mine. - I.S.]

Creation itself is ultimately feminine in relation to God’s absolutely independent transcendence. The contingent world came about as if taken out of “God’s rib”, to think of it analogously to the creation of Woman from Man’s rib.

Jesus became a man solely because He was born into a patriarchal society.

Because Christ was so wary to defy society, lest He become ill-received by His peers?

 

[Betterave]

I hope you’re joking, I sincerely hope you are.

No, I’m afraid that’s just reality. I guess reality seems funny sometimes!

 

[jonfawkes]

No, I’m afraid that’s just reality. I guess reality seems funny sometimes!

I have to ask “why?” If you found out that God was female you would loose all faith.

 

[Betterave]

Perhaps bordering on vulgar, but not arrogant. The OP really was not specific enough to really be sure what her claim is. I think some but not all have suggested that.

It seems that your assumption of a supercilious tone together with an absurd misconstrual of the position you’re calling into question could well constitute arrogance. Why not? It’s certainly something bad.

My criticism of the OP is in calling something she does not agree with stupid. We sometimes make the mistake when listening to young people of assuming that their knowledge is greater than it actually is. Some of the primary driving forces for youth are identity and identification. There is often a passionate defense of what one is, and what one believes.

True.

This is true regardless of whether they identify themselves as Catholic, liberal, pagan, Marxist, conservative, or anything else. The problem for me is that often when we hear statements in agreement with positions or ideologies we ourselves identify with, we assume a level of knowledge and understanding that may not actually exist. I have known many people who identify themselves as Marxists, for example, because they read and liked the manifesto. But they would be completely unable to discuss historical materialism, or the general theory of capitalist accumulation. Just as I have met many people who define themselves as Christian or Catholic simply because they like Jesus. Should we really assume that people understand the subject because their statements conform in someway to our own beliefs. Of course this can be equally true regardless of the age of the speaker. But in my experience it is very often especially true in regard to statements made by young people. And it certainly true, in my experience that we give them more latitude because we are so impressed by their passion and enthusiasm. Many people here will overlook equating liberal with stupid because this is often quite a reactionary site

The problem is that your observation is banal in this context - why? - because some liberal ideas are stupid, and you have provided no reason for thinking that the OP has not successfully identified one. Presumably she *could *have a fuller understanding of *why *it is stupid (as we all could), but so what?

Rather than the closed off way of defending ones identity by calling positions and interpretations different than our own stupid, I would recommend a more open and less antagonistic approach to learning. Listening to what is being said. Rather than to why it is wrong, or contrary to our ideas. There is entirely to much listening like a lawyer in the world ( listening to argue) rather than simply listening to actually listen or learn.

Absolutely we need to listen to others, but this advice should apply also to you…

This is of course only my banal, hypocritical, and arrogant opinion.

…since if you don’t, this may well be true.

Take tonyrey, for example: he is a fan of what you have said, he calls it an excellent analysis. But when you ask him questions about his own analysis he resorts to ad hominem attacks instead of answering those questions.

Likewise, the general claim you make about not dismissing the views of others are sound, but you also include a condemnation of the OP with regard to this particular case, and you do so solely on the basis of your generalization, without addressing the particulars of the case in question. So like it or not, you do seem to come out looking hypocritical: you’re dismissing a view you disagree with, without really listening.

 

[Betterave]

I have to ask “why?” If you found out that God was female you would loose all faith.

I wouldn’t lose all faith. I would lose my faith, which is the *Catholic *faith. Why? Because clearly included in the definite propositional content (the ‘deposit’) of the Catholic faith is the proposition that *God is **not *a female.

 

[jonfawkes]

I wouldn’t lose all faith. I would lose my faith, which is the *Catholic *faith. Why? Because clearly included in the definite propositional content (the ‘deposit’) of the Catholic faith is the proposition that *God is **not ***a female.

So you’d loose faith in God - not faith in the things like the Sun will come up tomorrow. Or you’d just loose faith in Catholicism and perhaps pick up another religion. Judaism perhaps.

 

[TMC]

I wouldn’t lose all faith. I would lose my faith, which is the *Catholic *faith. Why? Because clearly included in the definite propositional content (the ‘deposit’) of the Catholic faith is the proposition that *God is **not ***a female.

So I assume you would have the same reaction if you learned God was male? Because it is also clearly included in the the deposit of Catholic faith that God is not a male.

 

[CrazyRachel]

If you go to a Catholic college then tell the proffessors who choose to work there, especially the one who has a masters in theology, if Mary was Jesus’s Mother and became pregnant with the son of God then surely it stands to reason that he called God his father. Mary (Mother) + God (Father) = Jesus (a lovely little baby who grew up to be the greatest man who ever lived and if it was good enough for him to call God a “Father” or a “He” then its good enough for me too). Its as simple as that. Nothing to do with it being a patriarchal society or any other ridiculous politically correct rhetorics anyone may care to come up with just so they can sound big and clever.

Stay Strong College_Girl. If it comes to the crunch and you do have this discussion with your proffessor, remember the holy spirit will bless you with the right words to use.

 

[tonyrey]

Because Christ was so wary to defy society, lest He become ill-received by His peers?

Jesus did defy society with His revolutionary teaching, was ill-received by His peers and His public ministry lasted only three short years. If he had defied society still further and** unnecessarily** by choosing to be born as** a woman in a patriarchal society** and claiming to be the daughter of God His public ministry would almost certainly been cut short within three months by the outraged people. It would have defeated the purpose of becoming incarnate. What good would it have achieved??

 

[veritas82]

Pax vobiscum one and all,

I know - given the question - it may seem odd that a Muslim may wish to comment on this thread. Generally I feel the RC Church gets very unfair misrepresentation (which is saying something coming from a Muslim!) and this particular argument has been one that seems to come up again and again. Whilst my knowledge of Catholic theology is relatively simplistic I humbly put forward on this argument there may be some overlap between our faiths, i.e. a Muslim and a Catholic could use the same arument to refute the premis that calling God He only is chauvanistic.

Some help on this issue may come from the acclaimed book: `The Tao of Islam’ by Sachiko Murata. Although it is a hard book, it was very insightful, and I highly recommend it. It may be of benefit if I summarise the key points - forgive me, they are from an Islamic perspective but I feel they are as relevant to Catholicism as Islam.

Our purpose as humans is to be servants of God and then to be His vicegerents, in that order. Firstly we affirm God’s Majesty, Power and Awe affirming His distance and then we are brought into His intimate presence affirming His Beauty, Mercy and Love. These two `faces’ of God – His Majestic side and Beatific side – are the archetypal male and female characteristics. As His vicegerents on Earth we must – internally – manifest both the masculine and feminine sides to become the perfect human; showing dominance over our desires and ego and passivity and acceptance toward God and His commands. A Prophet is the best example and despite his outward male form this perfect inward state (both masculine and feminine in character) is open to all. Without this correct balance a human is rebellious; showing dominance to God and passivity toward our ego.

The society is an outward expression of this inner dimension by being both patriarchal and matriarchal. The public sphere is typically masculine in nature being constrictive by humbling to the austere Law. The private sphere is typically feminine in nature being expansive by interacting with the warmth of brother/sisterhood and Divine intimacy. The masculine side is dominant outwardly to keep order and keep the door of the feminine dominated inward. An imbalance and role reversal would lead to social upheaval. Men are given a degree over women in terms of a responsibility to authority but women have the advantage of acquiescence, which is more becoming to closeness to God. The feminine side is more fundamental to the Divine nature: `My mercy precedes my wrath,’ [Bukhari, Muslim] (you’d probably say God is love here ).

The modern afflictions of fundamentalism, exploitation of the World etc is due to an exaggeration of masculinity, a return to our spiritual tradition that praises femininity would redress the balance. So the patriarchal problem is not a historical one, which was imbued with a spiritual closeness to God (as anyone can tell from the great work of Christian mysticism: The Cloud of Unknowing), but rather a modern one.

I hope this helps, it was genuinely meant in a good way God is He in that, that is what is becoming of a Majestic Master, but it could be referred to She in an intimate was (as Saints have done) but the problem is, is that this is open to misunderstanding form the masses and so the default He is used in public (which is masculine in character). Perhaps this professors use of She/He is more a manifestation of his own ego? God knows best.

 

[Betterave]

So I assume you would have the same reaction if you learned God was male? Because it is also clearly included in the the deposit of Catholic faith that God is not a male.

You seem to be forgetting Jesus, who is God, and who is male. But other than that little omission, obviously that’s correct. Similarly if a Mormon was to learn that God the Father was not a male, he/she would ipso facto lose his/her Mormon faith. It’s pretty straightforward.

 

[Betterave]

Jesus did defy society with His revolutionary teaching, was ill-received by His peers and His public ministry lasted only three short years.

That’s for sure - he was terribly ill-received!
(We can only imagine if the self-proclaimed “Son of Man,” the prophesied messiah, had been a woman - slight credibility problems! They might have been partriarchal, but they weren’t stupid: a woman can’t be a son!)

If he had defied society still further and** unnecessarily** by choosing to be born as** a woman in a patriarchal society** and claiming to be the daughter of God His public ministry would almost certainly been cut short within three months by the outraged people. It would have defeated the purpose of becoming incarnate. What good would it have achieved??

Yeah, obviously that’s what would have happened and obviously she wouldn’t have achieved any good at all!

 

[Betterave]

If you go to a Catholic college then tell the proffessors who choose to work there, especially the one who has a masters in theology, if Mary was Jesus’s Mother and became pregnant with the son of God then surely it stands to reason that he called God his father. Mary (Mother) + God (Father) = Jesus (a lovely little baby who grew up to be the greatest man who ever lived and if it was good enough for him to call God a “Father” or a “He” then its good enough for me too).

Aren’t you forgetting that Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit (not by the Father) when she conceived?

 

[phil8888]

Not sure is this was mentioned already, but Peter Kreeft wrote an essay titled “Sex Symbolism” on why God is masculine. It’s very detailed and well-done. I really suggest people check it out.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/sexual-symbolism.htm

A few points:

• Jews refer to God as He
• Jesus referred to God as Father and he
• God, who is outside time and space, sends grace and life into the universe, like a male impregnates a female from without
• Priests who are male, act in persona Christi. Jesus is incarnate as a man
• We are the bridegroom, and Christ is the Bride.

Send that essay to your prof!

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Jesus did defy society with His revolutionary teaching, was ill-received by His peers and His public ministry lasted only three short years. If he had defied society still further and** unnecessarily** by choosing to be born as** a woman in a patriarchal society** and claiming to be the daughter of God His public ministry would almost certainly been cut short within three months by the outraged people. It would have defeated the purpose of becoming incarnate. What good would it have achieved??

The more I see of your posts on this thread, the more I wonder if you have any basic understanding of the Catholic faith. You’ve posted a couple of times now as if Jesus’s mission was to teach. That’s not the reason he came, according to the Catholic faith.

 

[tonyrey]

• Jews refer to God as He
  Jesus referred to God as Father and he

That does not mean we have to understand “Father” literally. God** created** sexuality.​

God, who is outside time and space, sends grace and life into the universe, like a male impregnates a female from without

That implies that a man resembles God more than a woman does! Do you really believe that? It also implies that the universe was not created by God because without a receptacle impregnation is impossible.​

Priests who are male, act in persona Christi. Jesus is incarnate as a man

But He is not divine as a man!

• We are the bridegroom, and Christ is the Bride.

That contradicts the idea that God is male! Is God the Father of the Bride?

 

[mark_avery]

To the original question,when your so willing to make the stand,a real obvious and final and quick quote,
is as simple as,God made animals also,so would you also suggest that our Father could somehow be described as for instance,the common stag beetle or deer,the choice is yours!

take care!

 

[phil8888]

Oops, that was a mistake. I meant Jesus is the bridegroom and we are the bride.

To answer some of your other qusetions, I will quote Peter Kreeft when he said something like - Divine fatherhood is not a metaphor of human love, rather earthly fatherhood is a metaphor of God’s relationship to us. Sort of like in the Bible when it says Call no man Father, because you have one true Father in heaven. God is really truly our father, and therefore he is masculine.

 

[tonyrey]

Divine fatherhood is not a metaphor of human love, rather earthly fatherhood is a metaphor of God’s relationship to us.

Precisely! God is not literally our Father but our Creator.

Sort of like in the Bible when it says Call no man Father, because you have one true Father in heaven. God is really truly our father, and therefore he is masculine.

In what way is God masculine? What are the** spiritual **qualities of masculinity?

 

[phil8888]

Precisely! God is not literally our Father but our Creator.

In what way is God masculine? What are the** spiritual **qualities of masculinity?

He is our literal father. Our earthly fathers are metaphors of God’s fatherhood.

God is masculine in the sense that he “impregnates” the universe with love and grace.