Imago Dei
Most theologies agree with the idea of people reflecting the image of God. Hence, human-like qualities such as creativity, love, and community point us towards the divine. And our lived experience is deemed suitable to bear symbolic reference to the divine. So, God is person, God is King, God is Father, God is shepherd, etc... If we treat any of these symbols literally, we are making them idols.
There are plenty of biblical images for God in female terms. Why is the average Christian's vocabulary restricted exclusively to male symbols and pronouns? Sure, the bible abounds with male images and language, but throughout, female ones are also present. Why are we so unhappy to call God 'she'? Is it that on one level we deny God a gender, but on another level the patriarchal 'father in the sky' is so entrenched that to use female images threatens too much? Is Father God an idol?
If we are to treat imago dei seriously, and I think there is a lot to suggest we should, I think we need to move beyond this.
Genesis 1:27:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
To use exclusively male symbols/language implicitly deny this passage, for women's experience is not seen as fit to bear the divine. Men are inherently more God-like than women.
We're not playing ping-pong with semantics here. In the words of Elizabeth Johnson, "the symbol functions". If we have patriarchal images of God, patriarchy is strengthened; women and the Other is oppressed. Nothing less than understanding of and relationship with God, with each other, and our experience in the world is at stake.
There are plenty of biblical images for God in female terms. Why is the average Christian's vocabulary restricted exclusively to male symbols and pronouns? Sure, the bible abounds with male images and language, but throughout, female ones are also present. Why are we so unhappy to call God 'she'? Is it that on one level we deny God a gender, but on another level the patriarchal 'father in the sky' is so entrenched that to use female images threatens too much? Is Father God an idol?
If we are to treat imago dei seriously, and I think there is a lot to suggest we should, I think we need to move beyond this.
Genesis 1:27:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
To use exclusively male symbols/language implicitly deny this passage, for women's experience is not seen as fit to bear the divine. Men are inherently more God-like than women.
We're not playing ping-pong with semantics here. In the words of Elizabeth Johnson, "the symbol functions". If we have patriarchal images of God, patriarchy is strengthened; women and the Other is oppressed. Nothing less than understanding of and relationship with God, with each other, and our experience in the world is at stake.
Technorati Tags: bible dissent feminism god spirituality
posted by kit at 12:15
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I hear what you're saying totally. But I think calling God she is just as inadequate as he. But then I don't particularly have an altervative.
I agree. Both ways are inadequate, this is the first step in understanding. But I believe the next is to use both 'he' and 'she' despite their failings. If we only rely on language about God that is a perfect representation of the divine, we will be silent.
Post a Comment
<< Home