From Father God to Mother Earth

[Rev. Joshua]

Originally posted by BibleboyII:
I thought that we were discussing the sound exposition of the Word of God in a manner that leads the hearer to salvation in Christ, confronts false doctrine, edifies the Body of Christ, and/or helps believers to be spurred on toward holy living. Teaching a false doctrine that leads people to believe that God is their "Heavenly Mother" does not do any of those things.

Limiting God to a male persona is not sound exposition. It is convenient to the political agenda of some Christians who are trying to reinstate patriarchy as a divinely sanctioned political order, but its political expedience does not mean that it is theologically sound.

Teaching the false doctrine that God has a sexual identity or is limited to one gender identityt (or - for that member - that gender identitities match stereotypes) drives people away from our faith. As does legalism, as does hypocrisy, as does all sorts of theologically unhealthy things that we should avoid. Yes, the cross is offensive to some, but other things are offensive because they are wrong. Limiting God falls into that category.

Joshua

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
Teaching the false doctrine that God has a sexual identity or is limited to one gender identityt (or - for that member - that gender identitities match stereotypes) drives people away from our faith. Limiting God falls into that category.

Josh, some people are interested in the faith that was delivered once for all. We do not share the same faith. Your faith is all inclusive and watered down so everyone may partake.

Limited God to what he revealed about himself is part of the message of the gospel. A person cannot hold an unbiblical view of God and be a part of the redeemed. God is spoken of as male. He is called father by Jesus and the early church. Note, it is always the God and Father (not mother) of our Lord Jesus Christ.

God does not have a feminine nature. That is just new age language that has infiltrated (so-called) christianity.

The passages that mention mother and God only refer to his caring and nurturing qualities. For us humans, a mother is a better picture than father. Can a father be caring and nurturing? Of course. So God does not cease to be Father just because he cares for and nurtures believers.

Until someone produces some real evidence that God is ever female, we can reject the idea of a feminine side of God as heretical, unbiblical, whatever you want to call it.

Here is my question: why do unbelievers dictate what clergy and ministers believe? It sounds strangely like people who will have teachers with itching ears...

Out like Jesus' acceptance of mother god.

[ October 22, 2002, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Preach the Word ]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Another "female nurturing" verse:

(MATTH 23:37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and
stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have
gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her
chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Literally, God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

OK - let's start this over again:

What is the difference between a male and a female? Their genetalia. God, who does not reproduce sexually, is therefore neither male nor female.

What is the difference between feminine and masculine? This varies from culture to culture, but is essentially a stereotype projected onto sexual identity. As everyone here seems to agree, in the Bible God exhibits traits that are both stereotypically feminine and stereotypically masculine. Consequently, neither gender identity is adequate for expressing the nature of God.

Why is this such a tough concept?

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
Here is my question: why do unbelievers dictate what clergy and ministers believe? It sounds strangely like people who will have teachers with itching ears...

Where have I said that unbelievers dictate what I believe? I believe that God has no sex but can be related to as both Mother and Father. That has nothing to do with what unbelievers think, and everything to do with being a serious student of the Bible and faith. My point is that we have an obligation as ministers to make that belief clear to our congregations, to provide them with as many theologically healthy models of God as we can.

You seem to keep missing the "theologically healthy" part.

Joshua

 

[Daniel David]

Paul of Eugene, I honestly don't know what side you fall on. You do bring up an interesting point though.

If God is both father and mother, we shouldn't rule out a chicken nature. There it is, right there in the text. Glory to God. That will preach man.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
You seem to keep missing the "theologically healthy" part.

Joshua

No. I disagree with you as to what is actually healthy. For you, it is a healthy model to let people with emotional, psychobabblical, and experiential problems with God decide whether or not they can accept God as who he is.

I believe that a person will never find true peace and joy until they do submit to the God of Scripture.

In other words:

Josh - redefine God for man's sake

PtW - call people to repent and believe God

Unlike paganism in liberal circles, I am out.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
I believe that a person will never find true peace and joy until they do submit to the God of Scripture.

Preach, the God of Scripture is not a man.

I'm not redefining God, I'm recognizing the Holy Otherness of God rather than projhecting human distinctions and limitation onto God.

Joshua

 

[John3v36]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Preach the Word:
I believe that a person will never find true peace and joy until they do submit to the God of Scripture.

Preach, the God of Scripture is not a man.

I'm not redefining God, I'm recognizing the Holy Otherness of God rather than projhecting human distinctions and limitation onto God.

Joshua</font>[/QUOTE]Okay show me one time in the Bible where it says the LORD She is God
I don't think you will find it.
you are trying to define God maleness on Human turms.

Does the the Bible say:
1 Corinthians 11:7
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

 

[Johnv]

Since God has no gender, whether one referrs to him as he or she is irrelevant to God and his sovereignty. We refer to God as male by tradition and custom, which was exemplified in the Bible. But I can find no biblical ban on referring to God in the feminine (the human Jesus not withstanding).

 

[Jim1999]

We communicate with each other in a common language. We use human terms of understanding. The Bible is no different. The language was common at the time it was written, and it was essentially patriarchal. Hence the language of "Father".

One rule of understanding scripture is to determine who is speaking and to whom, including history and culture. It is then we can understand what is being said and how we can apply the theological truths to to-day.

The world is changing and we must adapt in our theological application to meet those changes. This does not change the nature of God, nor the absolute principles of theology, but it may change how we address divinity in the minds of some. It no less respects who God is and does not change what we must do to please God.

Theologians down through the ages have never debated that God is Spirit; pure Spirit. God has neither arms nor legs nor eyes nor ears, but God reaches out and touches; God sees all and hears all.

I have no vision of God except the attributes we find in scripture. In my mind, in all honesty, I cannot comprehend what God looks like. I cannot visualize what image Spirit conveys. I can, however, conceive of a Father, therefore, it is comfortable for me to refer to God as Him, as Father, but I can also appreciate those who visualize Him as "Mother".

If you were asked to paint a picture of God, What would you paint?

By the way, I am as conservative, evangelical, Bible-believing as they come, and I speak of God in male terms...more because I am comfortable with this terminilogy, than I am being biblically correct.

I think we should be more gracious to those who differ in terminilogy, but substract no disrespect toward the most high God who dwells just beyond our fingertips; just beyond the flesh, in that place we call Heaven.

Cheers, and God bless,

Jim

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by BibleboyII:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist Believer:

This response does not answer the primary text in Genesis where male and female are created in God's image. *Females* are created in the image of God.

Hello Baptist Believer,

Be careful not to read too much into the Genesis text here. What is important is that God says that He created mankind in His image.</font>

While it is certainly important and relevant that humankind is created in God's image, it is also very important to recognize that both male and female bear the image of God.

Men are in the image of God.

Women are in the image of God.

Positive stereotypically male attributes are in the image of God.

Positive stereotypically female attributes are in the image of God.

Therefore, we can admit that something about God's image is best expressed by the joint nature of men and women together.

Certainly the mystery and beauty of marriage reveals God's character as well. The mutual submission of a husband and wife proclaims the mutual submission and unity of the Godhead.

 

[Daniel David]

BB, there is no such thing as mutual submission.

 

[Helen]

Ephesians 5:21
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

 

[Daniel David]

I am fully aware of that verse Helen. It doesn't mean what BB and apparently you say it means.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by BibleboyII:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BibleboyII:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
[qb]Viewing God as exclusively male is unbiblical, and a barrier to faith for some people.

Then call me a heretic!</font>[/QUOTE]He said "unbiblical" not "heretical".</font>[/QUOTE]If someone teaches something that is unbiblical it is a false doctrine, otherwise known as a heresy. Teachers of unbiblical false doctrines, heresies, are referred to as heretics. </font>[/QUOTE]While I recognize that differing opinions about biblical teaching are not tolerated very much in Southern Baptist life at this time, an honest difference in biblical interpretation does not automatically make one or both of the interpreters heretics. Heresy is a belief that is completely foreign to the Christian faith. Something that is unbiblical is merely a wrong interpretation of scripture that is well within the realm of mainstream Christian theology. If the word is properly used, a "heretical" idea is always unbiblical, but every unbiblical idea is not necessarily heretical.

When I made the clarification, I was pointed out that Joshua did not say that you were outside of the true faith because of heresy... he was just pointing out that your opinion may not be the most biblically accurate.

No, but you want to say that it is acceptable to refer to God as a Mother, or "Mother God."

Not exclusively as Mother or Parent, but it is my conviction that it is certainly acceptable to recognize both the stereotypically male and female images of God as the loving Heavenly Parent.

I fully realize that there is something about the image of God that is best expressed in His choice to create mankind as male and female. No one is denying that (see my previous post above).

Then we are not very far apart.

[ </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />warm and fuzzy terms is an affront to Holy God the FATHER. It is not our job as preachers of the Word of God to twist it so that we make everyone feel comfortable at all times.

It is not twisting the Word of God to recognize that the Bible teaches that females are made in the image of God -- indicating that the nature of God has feminine aspects.

Yes, but it is twisting it to preach it in such a manner as to teach people to refer to God the Father as "Mother God."</font>[/QUOTE]That is certainly an opinion, and the subject of this thread.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is our job to confront sin, to fight against false doctrine, to exhort believers to holy living, and hold out the glorious hope of salvation through Christ to a lost and dieing world.

Sure, I agree... but that's not what we are discussing.

I thought that we were discussing the sound exposition of the Word of God in a manner that leads the hearer to salvation in Christ, confronts false doctrine, edifies the Body of Christ, and/or helps believers to be spurred on toward holy living. Teaching a false doctrine that leads people to believe that God is their "Heavenly Mother" does not do any of those things.</font>[/QUOTE]We *are* discussing the sound exposition of the scripture. (You did not mention this in your previous post)

We *are* talking about false ideas about God. This discussion aims to clarify our understanding of God. (We disagree about exactly what those false ideas are -- you mentioned "fighting against" false doctrine which may be a little different.)

We *are* talking about edification of the Body of Christ. There are pastoral and devotion reasons for this discussion. (You did not mention this in your previous post)

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
I am fully aware of that verse Helen. It doesn't mean what BB and apparently you say it means.

Friend, with all due respect, I believe what the Bible says about submitting yourself one to another. That statement prefaces the entire section that follows as the guiding principle.

Mutual submission between husband and wife is the highest expression of a healthy, God-honoring relationship that expresses well the ideal relationship that the church has with Christ.

It is the ultimate expression of trust between husband and wife and Christ and His church.

I know that some here are going to have a knee-jerk foam-at-the-mouth fit over those last two sentences because you may assume I'm talking about the current state of Christ and His church.

But I'm talking about the ideal in marriage and what I believe to be the relationship that the church will have with Christ when we will "know and we are known".

 

[Daniel David]

BB, please explain how Christ is ever submissive to the church.

 

[Johnv]

there is no such thing as mutual submission

Yes there is, but that's wayyyyyy off topic.

 

[Daniel David]

JohnV, then start a new thread. Btw, no there isn't.

 

[PastorGreg]

Our bottom line is to present God as God has revealed Himself to us and He has chosen to reveal Himself as "He." He is the King of kings, not the Queen of queens. The fact that He has attributes that are stereotypically feminine, does not give us the right or responsibility to refer to Him as mother. Paul said in I Thess. 2:7 that he and his companions had been, "Gentle among you as a nurse cherisheth her children." So do we now have the Apostle Paula?

[ October 22, 2002, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: PastorGreg ]