Recently the Episcopal Diocese of Washington passed a resolution about gendered language and God, and the internet, predictably, went crazy.
This issue touches on a number of issues Biblically, Theologically, Ethically, and Aesthetically. None of these issues are particularly complex in and of themselves, but taken together it creates an issue where people absolutely lose their minds. Before commenting, let's read what the resolution actually says: They urge the Episcopal Church to "utilize expansive language for God from the rich sources of feminine, masculine, and non-binary imagery for God found in Scripture and tradition and, when possible, to avoid the use of gendered pronouns for God." That's it. That's all of the language of the resolution. There is no attempt to prohibit male images, titles, and pronouns for God, but to balance them with images, titles, and pronouns drawn from Scripture and Tradition which reflect other aspects of God as well.
Let's look at all of the issues:
Biblically, it is true that an overwhelming number of images of God in Scripture are masculine. The first Person of the Triune God is spoke of as Father, Lord, King, and Master, among other male images. The second Person of the Triune God is, likewise, spoken of in masculine terms, and indeed is incarnate in the human male, Jesus of Nazareth. With the third Person of the Triune God, the Holy Spirit, things are not as clear cut. Spirit is a feminine noun in Hebrew, and neuter in Greek. The Spirit is frequently spoken of in feminine ways, often as Wisdom embodied in feminine form, as a companion with God (cf. Proverbs 8, Wisdom 7). Furthermore, there are dozens of feminine images and metaphors for God used in Scripture amidst the hundreds of male images. In several texts, God is spoken of as a mother bird covering her chicks with her wings, as the feminine Spirit hovering over the waters of creation as a hen broods over her nest, and as a mother who gives us new birth in the Spirit.
Theologically, it is a fact agreed upon across traditions that God, in Godself, is beyond gender. God is a Triune, Infinite, Personal Ultimate Reality that creates and upholds all other realities. As such, God transcends any words or categories we can use to describe God, including gendered words. This is not to deny the Scriptural images spoken of above, but to say that they are culturally adapted images and symbols used to point us in the direction of God, but which cannot ultimately and fully contain God. God is beyond gender, and what we think of as gender somehow reflects, but does not contain, who God is in Godself. It is true that this untouchable, unseen, incomprehensible God did become incarnate in a human male, Jesus of Nazareth, so that he could be touched, seen, and comprehended. But just as the fact of the Incarnation does not imply that God eternally has brown hair or toenails, so also it does not mean God is eternally male. It just so happens that ancient patriarchal human societies usually described God as male, and sometimes as female, because that was the best possible symbol to use for God since God is Personal. To call God a neuter "it" fails to convey the fact that God is a responsive reality we can interact with, love, and know (even if in limited ways).
Ethically, things get a bit more complicated. Because Scriptures were authored in a culture that assumed male superiority, they tend to reinforce male domination of women in ways that are sometimes subtle and sometimes explicit. On one hand, Scripture takes strides forward in comparison with ancient cultural norms. We can see this from Genesis, where male and female are both created co-equal in God's image, to the letters of Paul, where he says that in Christ there is neither male nor female, to the New Testament lists of female and male leaders in the early church (cf. Romans 16; Philippians 4). On the other hand, many portions of Scripture seem to demote women to an inferior and subordinate role, and remove agency and voice from women (cf. Ephesians 5; 1Timothy 2; Proverbs 31). So, in an effort to reverse the corruption of patriarchy on Scripture, one helpful strategy is to go back to Genesis, and reinforce the fact that femininity does reflect the God who made us all in God's image. If the feminine is Divine, as well as the masculine, then there is no reason to treat the female as "less than" the male. And the way to do this is to draw on feminine images of God which have always been present in Scripture and Tradition (and I am glossing over all the voices in Tradition, from Desert Fathers, to Julian of Norwich, to St. Bernard of Clairvaux, to modern feminist theologians, who speak of God in feminine AND masculine terms).
Finally, we get to Aesthetics, which is where I think most of the debate and anger really comes from. The fact is that we are not accustomed to speaking of God in feminine AND masculine terms, so it does not "feel" right aesthetically. It "feels" like we are breaking tradition. It "feels" wrong. And we have to ask ourselves: Does it "feel" wrong because it IS wrong, or does it "feel" wrong because we are change averse? If it is the former, we need to find objective reasons, rooted in Scripture and Tradition, to say that it is wrong to speak of God in feminine terms. If it is the latter, it is not a reason at all.
But I will say this as well: There is another aspect of the aesthetics of prayer and the language of worship. And that is how well language "flows trippingly from the tongue". Some of the attempts to broaden our images and titles used for God in worship have been, frankly, ugly and awkward. I have experienced people trying to use S/he to refer to God, or "It", or "Godself", or a generic "they", in ways that do not work in the English language, especially when spoken publicly. It is clunky, un-pretty language, not befitting the Majesty of the God in whom we live and move and exist.
Instead, we can draw robustly on the Trinitarian language of gendered personal images of God. We can speak of the Spirit as our Mother who gives us birth and who covers us in her wings. We can speak of Jesus who is begotten of the Father and born of the Spirit through the Blessed Virgin. We can speak of the Spirit as Lady Wisdom who nurtures us and embraces us in God's Love. And we can also speak of the Father and the Son who complete the Creation and Redemption of the World through the power of the Holy Spirit.
With all of this said, as sympathetic as I am to this issue, it does seem to me that there are more fruitful issues we could spend our time on at this point in the life of the Church than passing resolutions about gendered language for God. In addition, the wording of the resolution does seem to over-correct in certain ways. But then again, I'm reading this as a male, and that changes how I see things. And perhaps the Holy Spirit was leading them in a different way than I would go. After all, She didn't ask for my advice, and She has a Wisdom I do not have. And many of my friends who are concerned with social issues would tell me that I waste time praying for things when I could use that time DOING something. But the Spirit has told me to pray AND act, and not just act alone. So, who am I so say what the Spirit should or should not have led the Diocese of Washington to vote on?
No comments:
Post a Comment