Originally posted by Helen:
1. The man has been appointed by God the head over the woman in a marriage and in a home. Thus, for God to be anything other than termed "Father" would indicate there might be someone over Him.
Hmm... Let me think on this one and get back to you.
Off the top of my head, I would not advocate that God be identified as *exclusively* female because God is not. As the Bible references I indicated clearly state, God has both feminine and masculine attributes. To narrow God to one or the other is to distort God. Furthermore, there is submission in the Triune nature of God, yet we don't seem to have a problem with that... Jesus was submissive to the Father's will. Identifying Jesus as the Son (according to your line of reasoning here) indicates that there is someone "over" Him in authority -- which was correct during the incarnation -- but now the Son has been exalted by the Father. Does that mean that the Father is in submission to the Son?
The problem with discussing God is that the mystery of God's triune nature is too great for us to comprehend and human arguments about that nature tend to fall apart. The way I understand submission within the mystery of the Trinity is that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are all in loving submission to each other yet completely unified in love. God is of one essence, yet three persons. Exclusively assigning maleness of God does not fully represent the biblical witness.
Would you have objections to someone referring to God as our Heavenly Parent?
2. It was the woman who was deceived in the Garden of Eden. God cannot be deceived.
God is not a human woman.
3. From the time shortly after the flood and down through today, there are very strong goddess cults, the Gaia cult being simply a recent 'reincarnation' of a number of others. Separating the God of the Bible from male idols is a fairly easy task, but if the identity of God got mixed up with female, a lot more confusion would result in who was who and whether or not God was 'partly' this or that.
Confusion is inevitable in this world of sin. Believers can make the necessary clarifications since we *shouldn't* classify God as exclusively female.
4. If God were called "mother" or "...and mother" then there is the significant danger of claiming we were procreated and not created beings, thus giving rise to the little gods idea of Mormonism. God prevented this by giving Himself the masculine gender in our world.
Again, we should not identify God as exclusively female. The recognition of the masculine nature of God has done nothing to stop Mormon theology. In fact, to them "God" has multiple wives that he visits and impregnates. That way, "God" can produce more spirit babies without being slowed down by pregnancy. If the idea that God was female was dominant when Joseph Smith, Jr. came on the scene, he probably would have figure out a way to distort that too.
Regardless of the fact that He is nourishing and caring -- which a lot of daddies are, by the way
But I can't nurse a child

unless I get some serious hormone injections. The scripture you allude to is a feminine image regardless of how you spin it.
He has directed us to think of Him in the masculine gender and we should obey.
I'm all for obedience, but God has also given us the written word that teaches the feminine nature of God as well.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I have some things to consider regarding your first point.
[ October 20, 2002, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]