"Our Mother Who art in heaven"?

[Smoke]

Presbyterians Weigh Worship Alternatives
(Houston Chronicle)

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — Delegates of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are to tackle whether to adopt gender-inclusive language for worship of the divine Trinity along with the traditional "Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
​

‘Our Mother who art in Heaven’ -- challenging dominant masculinity
(Online Journal)

If I have been compelled to engage in the subject of male imagery used in the Christian church, it is not to denigrate men. My goal is to create a safe space to talk about the ‘male God’ problematic. For the present, my aim is to demonstrate the dominance of male language in the church, to indicate the close tie in male metaphors of God and patriarchal thinking, and finally to argue the need for all inclusive gender metaphors that describe God amid the potential hurdles of this venture.
​

Christians: Does it matter whether God is described in male or female terms? Why or why not?

Women (any or no religion): Do you feel alienated, marginalized or excluded by the use of male terms to describe God?

All: Generally speaking, what do you think of the move toward "gender-neutral" language?

​

 

[BucephalusBB]

All: Generally speaking, what do you think of the move toward "gender-neutral" language?

Unhandy.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Women (any or no religion): Do you feel alienated, marginalized or excluded by the use of male terms to describe God?

Hmm... Not sure if I'd put it that way, but I think using exclusively male terms to describe diety can lead to thinking of diety as being soley male. (And, consequently, to viewing males as having more in common with the divine than females.) The only time I feel alienated when someone uses male terms to define god are when they're purposely doing so in order to put down my concept of the divine, which I tend to refer to as "Goddess". I grew up in the Christian faith, however, so I am perfectly content with the fact that most in that faith tend to associate him more with 'fatherly' attributes than 'motherly' ones.

All: Generally speaking, what do you think of the move toward "gender-neutral" language?

Hopefully, it might lead to healing.

 

[jonny]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/3981969.htmlChristians: Does it matter whether God is described in male or female terms? Why or why not?

All: Generally speaking, what do you think of the move toward "gender-neutral" language?

Most Mormons believe in a Mother in Heaven (makes sense if we've got a Father in Heaven) so I don't think that it matters if God is described in male or female terms. The hymn O My Father is where this idea is presented most clearly from official church literature (that I am aware of).

"I had learned to call thee father, thru thy Spirit it from on high. But, until the key of knowledge was restored, I knew not why. In the heavens are parents single? No, the thought make reason stare! Truth is reason; truth eternal tells me I've a mother there."

You can click on the link above to hear the entire hymn. I don't agree with the move towards "gender-neutral" language because I believe that gender is a divine and eternal attribute of God.

 

[Smoke]

I don't agree with the move towards "gender-neutral" language because I believe that gender is a divine and eternal attribute of God.

Would you feel better about it if I had said "gender-inclusive" instead of "gender-neutral"?

 

[Melody]

Christians: Does it matter whether God is described in male or female terms? Why or why not?

No. Man and woman were created in God's image so it would seem God is both male and female (if you choose to give Him a sex).

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Genesis 1:26-27


Women (any or no religion): Do you feel alienated, marginalized or excluded by the use of male terms to describe God?

No...it's just a term.



All: Generally speaking, what do you think of the move toward "gender-neutral" language?
I think it's about as silly as all of the other areas where they've gone to "gender-neutral" terms. It's cumbersome.

 

[Smoke]

Unhandy.

It's cumbersome.

It often is. Some of people who crusade for these kinds of changes have no feel for the language.

But does it have to be?

Is humankind harder on the ear than mankind?

Is "all people" more vulgar or more cumbersome than "all men"?

I have mixed feelings about gender-neutral language. I don't consider it sexist in any way to refer to a woman as an actress or a comedienne, because those words aren't normally used in a abusive way. It's not at all the same thing as when conservatives refer to Bishop Schori as a "bishopess" or -- worse -- a "bishopette." Those terms are always meant as abuse.

But is Irishman a sexist term? Can there be a female Irishman? How about clergyman? Is Bishop Schori a female clergyman? What about chairman? Madame Chairperson seems artificial and cumbersome, and Madame Chair verges on the ridiculous. What does one say? Madame Chairman? Madame Chairwoman?

If I begin a business letter "Ladies and Gentlemen:" or even "Gentlemen and Ladies:" -- the latter is what Miss Manners recommends -- I feel vaguely silly, as if I'm addressing the audience at a stage performance. But if I begin as I was taught -- "Gentlemen:" -- the response invariably turns out to be signed by a woman, and I feel as if I've been vaguely offensive.

When it comes to the scriptures, I think the question hinges on one's view of the scriptures. If you view the scriptures primarily as the inerrant Word of God (as some people do), or as historical texts (as I do) it seems rash and unnecessary to "update" them. If you view them primarily as liturgical or devotional texts, though, updating them is just good sense. When views overlap -- for instance, when you see the scriptures as both the Word of God and as liturgical texts -- then the question becomes a little more difficult.

 

[BucephalusBB]

But does it have to be?

Perhaps not, but is it worth changing language over that? I mean, Is it really such a big deal?

 

[Smoke]

Perhaps not, but is it worth changing language over that? I mean, Is it really such a big deal?

It's a big deal to some people. Language is always changing anyway, so I don't see the great harm if some changes are intentional. The kind of change that really bugs me is the rise of stupid words like "commentate" or "orientate." In comparison, "humankind" is a breath of fresh air.

 

[James the Persian]

The kind of change that really bugs me is the rise of stupid words like "commentate" or "orientate." In comparison, "humankind" is a breath of fresh air.

There's nothing wrong with orientate. That's standard (UK) English. It always bugs me when I see the American 'disoriented'. There's a syllable missing and when you break it up it makes no sense. It's not a new word that's arisen but a long standing difference between the English on either side of the Atlantic.

On the point of rewriting Scripture to make it 'inclusive', frankly it strikes me as completely pointless and about as daft as rewriting Shakespeare to make it fit with modern PC sensibilities. If people can't understand that that's the way people of the time wrote and that words that appear masculine can refer to both sexes in such old texts (and even many that are nowhere near as old) then I'm afraid that it makes mke wonder about their grasp of English.

James

 

[michel]

Christians: Does it matter whether God is described in male or female terms? Why or why not?

Not to me, not at all. I have no way of understanding anything about God anyway, so should I worry about his gender ?

All: Generally speaking, what do you think of the move toward "gender-neutral" language?

Cumbersome, but unsurprising. We live in a world Of P.C.

Having said that, I get frustrated with needing to say "will the member..........please let me know if he/she...and if he/she.........to him/her"

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Christians: Does it matter whether God is described in male or female terms? Why or why not?

In my opinion, yes - but only to the worshipper. Christians have always had a tough time relating to God as a "Father" because many of our earthly fathers are utter failures: drunks, molesters, alduterous greedy ********.


All: Generally speaking, what do you think of the move toward "gender-neutral" language?

The Bible makes it clear that we are to relate to God as one relates to a parent. IMO, gender-inclusive language like "Parent" only sterilizes our view of God, who in the Bible is described in both male and female terms. Perhaps it could work.

Personally, I'd like to see "Holy Mother" and "Holy Father" refer to the same divine Being, but I would not be opposed to "Divine Parent" or "Holy Parent" and allow the worshipper to think in terms of a good father or good mother.

 

[Smoke]

There's nothing wrong with orientate. That's standard (UK) English. It always bugs me when I see the American 'disoriented'. There's a syllable missing and when you break it up it makes no sense. It's not a new word that's arisen but a long standing difference between the English on either side of the Atlantic.

According to the Encarta dictionary, it's a mid-19th century back-formation from orientation. However, the Cambridge Dictionary does list orientate as the UK preference and orient as the US preference, and I guess I'll have to concede the right of you Brits to formate words in whatever way you determinate to be preferable.

 

[Smoke]

In my opinion, yes - but only to the worshipper. Christians have always had a tough time relating to God as a "Father" because many of our earthly fathers are utter failures: drunks, molesters, alduterous greedy ********.

But aren't many of our earthly mothers utter failures, too? Is the multiplication of inadequate metaphors for God an improvement? I think it may be, in that it helps to drive home the point that they are metaphors, but since it's primarily a Christian issue I'm more interested in how you view it.

 

[evearael]

Women (any or no religion): Do you feel alienated, marginalized or excluded by the use of male terms to describe God?
I don't believe God to be constrained by gender, so I do not view the male terms as being literal and do not feel the need to get bent out of shape about it. I do feel "alienated, marginalized or excluded" by people who attempt to put down my gender because they believe God to be male.
All: Generally speaking, what do you think of the move toward "gender-neutral" language?
If a particular faith wants to, that is their business. Personally, I think it would be better to teach that God isn't constrained by gender and the male terms are not literal.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But aren't many of our earthly mothers utter failures, too?

Quite right, and this is recognized in Scripture.

Psalm 27

The LORD Is My Light and My Salvation

Of David.

1The LORD is my light and my salvation;
whom shall I fear?
The LORD is the stronghold[a] of my life;
of whom shall I be afraid?


2When evildoers assail me
to eat up my flesh,
my adversaries and foes,
it is they who stumble and fall.

3Though an army encamp against me,
my heart shall not fear;
though war arise against me,
yet[b] I will be confident.

4One thing have I asked of the LORD,
that will I seek after:
that I may dwell in the house of the LORD
all the days of my life,
to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD
and to inquire[c] in his temple.

5For he will hide me in his shelter
in the day of trouble;
he will conceal me under the cover of his tent;
he will lift me high upon a rock.

6And now my head shall be lifted up
above my enemies all around me,
and I will offer in his tent
sacrifices with shouts of joy;
I will sing and make melody to the LORD.

7Hear, O LORD, when I cry aloud;
be gracious to me and answer me!
8You have said, "Seek[d] my face."
My heart says to you,
"Your face, LORD, do I seek."[e]
9Hide not your face from me.
Turn not your servant away in anger,
O you who have been my help.
Cast me not off; forsake me not,
O God of my salvation!
10For my father and my mother have forsaken me,
but the LORD will take me in.

11Teach me your way, O LORD,
and lead me on a level path
because of my enemies.
12Give me not up to the will of my adversaries;
for false witnesses have risen against me,
and they breathe out violence.
13I believe[f] that I shall look upon the goodness of the LORD
in the land of the living!
14Wait for the LORD;
be strong, and let your heart take courage;
wait for the LORD!



Is the multiplication of inadequate metaphors for God an improvement?

They multiple metaphors have always been there.

 

[sojourner]

It often is. Some of people who crusade for these kinds of changes have no feel for the language.

But does it have to be?

Is humankind harder on the ear than mankind?

Is "all people" more vulgar or more cumbersome than "all men"?

I have mixed feelings about gender-neutral language. I don't consider it sexist in any way to refer to a woman as an actress or a comedienne, because those words aren't normally used in a abusive way. It's not at all the same thing as when conservatives refer to Bishop Schori as a "bishopess" or -- worse -- a "bishopette." Those terms are always meant as abuse.

But is Irishman a sexist term? Can there be a female Irishman? How about clergyman? Is Bishop Schori a female clergyman? What about chairman? Madame Chairperson seems artificial and cumbersome, and Madame Chair verges on the ridiculous. What does one say? Madame Chairman? Madame Chairwoman?

If I begin a business letter "Ladies and Gentlemen:" or even "Gentlemen and Ladies:" -- the latter is what Miss Manners recommends -- I feel vaguely silly, as if I'm addressing the audience at a stage performance. But if I begin as I was taught -- "Gentlemen:" -- the response invariably turns out to be signed by a woman, and I feel as if I've been vaguely offensive.

When it comes to the scriptures, I think the question hinges on one's view of the scriptures. If you view the scriptures primarily as the inerrant Word of God (as some people do), or as historical texts (as I do) it seems rash and unnecessary to "update" them. If you view them primarily as liturgical or devotional texts, though, updating them is just good sense. When views overlap -- for instance, when you see the scriptures as both the Word of God and as liturgical texts -- then the question becomes a little more difficult.

I understand (from somebody who knows) that, originally, the term "man" referred to both sexes. Females were known as women, males were known as wermen. Just as there really is no sex involved in the title "Reverend," or "Deacon," (there really is no correct term "Deaconess"), why should there be a problem with "Bishop?" Why should "chairman" offend? Or clergyman? Personally, I find "humankind" to be cumbersome and redundant. What's wrong with simply "mankind," if the term "man" is really gender-inclusive?

 

[sojourner]

Christians: Does it matter whether God is described in male or female terms? Why or why not?

In my opinion, yes - but only to the worshipper. Christians have always had a tough time relating to God as a "Father" because many of our earthly fathers are utter failures: drunks, molesters, alduterous greedy ********.


All: Generally speaking, what do you think of the move toward "gender-neutral" language?

The Bible makes it clear that we are to relate to God as one relates to a parent. IMO, gender-inclusive language like "Parent" only sterilizes our view of God, who in the Bible is described in both male and female terms. Perhaps it could work.

Personally, I'd like to see "Holy Mother" and "Holy Father" refer to the same divine Being, but I would not be opposed to "Divine Parent" or "Holy Parent" and allow the worshipper to think in terms of a good father or good mother.

I agree with the sterile aspect of the term "parent." Mother, Father -- these are intimate terms. "Parent" sounds aloof and analytical. I don't find that to be at all helpful to a relationship built upon love, and maybe as obstructive to intimacy as a poor relationship with one's earthly father.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What's wrong with simply "mankind," if the term "man" is really gender-inclusive?

The problem is, it's not. It's the feminist movement, not the woman's movement.

I've often puzzeled over why humankind is.

footnotes
http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/generic_man1.html
http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/inclusive.htm
http://www.wtn.org.uk/gender-inclusive.pdf (pages 13-19)

 

[Smoke]

What's wrong with simply "mankind," if the term "man" is really gender-inclusive?

Nothing at all. The problem is that people don't understand that it is inclusive. They see it as comparable to womankind.