Friday, 17 June 2011
-
She: The Holy Spirit
I, at times, refer to the Holy Spirit of God (one of the three persons of the trinity which consists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit) as "she". This turns a lot of heads, perks ears, and lifts eyebrows nearly every time I do it. Why? Because it is unfamiliar language? Yes, in part. Because it sounds fallacious or heretical? Perhaps. But is it heretical or even fallacious? I submit that not only is this practice not veering into incorrect theology but is greatly beneficial to Christians, especially male Christians. First, we all have to admit that God is not a man. He is not a man as male humans are men. Jesus Christ was fully human and a male, yes, but God (the Godhead) is not a man. He does not have a penis. A person of God is man (but also God) but God in One is not a man. Man was made in the image of God. Male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27). Both men and women reflect who God is by their very nature. That means God can not be confined to one of their created natures. Therefore we must confess that God, being other and greater than humans, transcends gender. He is neither male nor female for he is beyond. He is other. He is God. Or, as he once stated to Moses, "I Am." Many refer to God as tertium quid which means "third thing." He's completely different from us.
Even though God transcends gender we often refer to God (and all three persons of the Trinity) as "he" in scripture. Why? Well there are several good reasons I'm sure but the most obvious would be culture. In a world dominated by men (sadly this is still true today) it only makes sense to call God "he". Yet we know that He is not in our image but we in His. This is true of both us fellas and us ladies. We're all in His image. But we have this longstanding tradition of referring to God as a "he". I observe this tradition. Why wouldn't I? We have to do what we can with what we've got. Now we have to ask if there is tradition of referring to God or any of His persons as "she". Jesus Christ is not a "she" and certainly the Father is not a "she" but what about the Holy Spirit?
First, we need to rewind a tiny bit. Jesus Christ was a man. He was male. He was human. Right? Right. But he is also called the Wisdom of God (Proverbs 8:22). That's interesting. At the same time, the Spirit of God is also often looked upon as the Wisdom of God. For many through time there is a deep connection between God's Wisdom and Spirit. Throughout the Proverbs Wisdom is referred to as a woman, a female, a "she". Interesting again. But Jesus isn't a woman. He isn't just the Wisdom of God and yet He is still the Wisdom of God. But let's not forget, for what it is worth, this connection exists. But what of the Spirit? The Spirit is not like Jesus Christ. Spirit is not human, not male. So would it be wrong to refer to the Spirit as "he"? No. Scripture does this at times. What about "she"? This requires more examining of God and tradition. I would suggest here that referring to Spirit as "it" is insufficient and treating a personal being as impersonal.
God is like a father in many ways. God is also like a mother in many ways. He gives us life and births us (in Him we are born again), nurtures us, comforts us, feeds us, and so on. He's a working father and a stay at home mother all at once. He provides all we need. We are his children, born of him, protected by him, raised by him. How does much of this nurturing occur? Through the Spirit of course for she is our helper. The more feminine (traditionally I mean, so don't jump down my throats ladies because you know by now that I'm a feminist as well) aspects of God seem to line up with the activity of the Spirit. In fact, this is so true that early Church Fathers such as Origen and Jerome stated "My Mother, the Holy Spirit, seized me." This answers our earlier question of whether there is tradition of God being called "she". Church fathers certainly referred to a person of the trinity as "she" and there are scriptural connections to the concept of God being feminine.
At the end of the day, I can find no reason why it would be any more wrong to deem the Holy Spirit "she" as opposed to "he". At the least we can say that "she" is more appropriate than "it." At the same time, "he" is entirely appropriate and more common. The Holy Spirit shouldn't be confined to either "he" or "she" it seems according to tradition. For many Christians this is a practice that could help remind them of the important role women play in creation and the way they reflect Creator God who gives us life. This may be uncomfortable for many, especially men, but I have found it to be incredibly enriching. Perhaps we all ought to try it from time to time, in the write context (when referring to the feminine aspects of the Spirit).
What are your thoughts? Do you find this practice uncomfortable? What about fallacious? Have you encountered this before? Do you think this could be a good practice?
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: TheGreatBout@xanga
- Name: Travis
- Location: United States
- About Me: Seek and you will find... or something.
-
True
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 230 Views: 0 347886 Comments: 0 3317 View all posts by TheGreatBout@xanga
Comments (51)
might sound totally odd, but I believe that God is a man... male.
BUT I also believe that the holy spirit is possibly feminine, female.
I don't think it really makes a lot of difference. In talking about spirit, gender means nothing. The holy spirit doesn't have genitals. So I say sure whatever.
Never thought of this before. Interesting! Thank you for broadening my horizon.
There are many references in the scriptures to the Holy Spirit as "he." Jesus spoke over and over of His Heavenly Father. Father is far different from God or even omniscient blob or omnipotent thing. How many times do the scriptures have to say these things before we believe them? Jesus is the Son of Man, a perfect, all powerful man, which in no way diminishes who He is or His divinity as our Eternal Father, but should give us hope that as we are described as being joint heirs with Christ, we can grow up to become like Him. The Holy Spirit witnesses to my spirit that these things are true.
The Bible written under inspiration of God refers to the Holy Spirit as "he" so to refer to it by anything else is not biblical.
I respectfully disagree with you, TheGreatBout.
As others have said, Jesus himself referred to God as Heavenly Father. I agree that while God the Father doesn't necessarily have reproductive organs - I do believe that He is best represented as male simply because that was how Jesus referred to Him. I don't know about you, but I refuse to tell Jesus that He is wrong when He knows better than I do and He has personally met God. Plus, I hate it when my 5 year old tells me something contradictory to fact even AFTER I've corrected him, simply because he thinks he's right. It's irritating. I refuse to be that way myself. I'm wise enough to know better.
Furthermore - I've been long since tired of the "male dominated world" argument.
Here are some good thoughts on this from the biblical Christian perspective.
"Let us turn to 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 for there we have a Scriptural overview of headship. (READ):
As we have seen, the Head of Christ is God. The Head of man is Christ. And the Head of woman is the man. Being under headship is not in itself demeaning, for it contributes to the handling of matters in an orderly arrangement. Although Jesus Christ is under the headship of Jehovah God, he does not object to God being his Head. Rather, he finds great satisfaction in that relationship. In John 5:19,20 Jesus said, “Most truly I say to you, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”
The Scriptures make it very clear that man was assigned a relative headship, particularly in the family and in the Christian congregation. God never gave man absolute authority over the woman; man must answer to his head, Christ Jesus, and to God for the way that he exercises such relative headship."
Source.
So while some may say that this doesn't apply to the secular & business world. Well, it also says in the Bible that Eve's desire would be for her husband but he would dominate her. Which basically just means that he's a sinner & will now treat her as a sinner... not as gently & respectably as when they were sinless. So basically that just carries over into everyone's everyday lives - through emotions, actions, etc. So really this is a result of sin nature. I think I have less trouble accepting this flaw in humanity than other flaws that are much more serious in my mind.
@MyTwoCentss@xanga - I agree with you.
John 16:13
When the Spirit of truth comes, HE will guide you into all the truth; for HE will not speak on HIS own authority, but whatever HE hears HE will speak, and HE will declare to you the things that are to come.
I think that the Scripture is pretty clear the Holy Spirit is a HE.
I would like to know what the ultimate goal of this line of thought is. Is it to make feminists more comfortable with Christianity? Is it to advance the ideas of gender confusion? Is it an attempt to advance Christian liberalism and it's agenda? Or is it just one of those Hmmm what if moments? I think others have made great points showing where the scriptures explicitly refer to all three persons in the trinity as "He".
I know that God in His triune-ness is transcendent. I know that God is called "El' Shaddi" which means "many breasted one" literally, but the purpose is not to make God out to be a female but rather to highlight the "all sufficient nature" of God. It is the same with the ideas behind the wisdom verses. The point is never to establish Christ as female in any sense so we can run around saying "she, she, she!" but rather to exhort us to seek out godly wisdom which is ultimately personified in the person of Christ.
Just curious as to what the point is.
Grace and peace!
~Michael
I think again we have to refer to the time the Bible was written. It was written in a time of male dominance and any female historical figures were conveniently left out of history. I believe it's entirely possible (and probable) that the very men (yes, it was ultimately men) who wrote the Bible interjected their own biases into it, and at the time that would include male dominance. God-inspired or not, men (males even) wrote the Bible, and as such the Bible is subject to the authors' biases. This is the reason I do not believe in "Biblical infallibility."
@MyTwoCentss@xanga - I wasn't discussing the person of the Father but rather the person of the Spirit. That being said, do you think all the persons of God are best represented as males and if so why? (Because Jesus said so doesn't count btw).
@PrincessVictoria_2004@xanga - What are your thoughts on Origen and Jerome? Would you say they are pushing fallacy or heresy with their statement? How do you define a "he?"
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake@xanga - The Bible doesn't contain a lot of appropriate things. It doesn't speak against this sort of practice. We see evidence of this practice in the early church. Knowing these facts how do we approach the issue? Do we simply conclude that if it (whatever it is) is not in the bible it must be avoided? Do we say if something is not prohibited that it is permissible? Or do we find some kind of middle ground? If there is a middle ground then what does it look like on this type of issue?
@MC_Shann@xanga - I don't mention trying to make feminists comfortable with Christianity. I don't care if people are comfortable. I don't want to promote confusion. That'd be foolish. I don't even know how one defines Christian 'liberalism' or what that agenda is. Do I seem like the type that makes those suggestions actual options? Let's say the motivation is to create theological dialogue in an online Christian community. That's sufficient for me. The point is present in the material. Read and think and a smart fellow like you will easily find it.
@TheGreatBout@xanga - The only early church that I care about, are the ones who wrote the Bible under the direction of the Holy Spirit. If it is not in the Bible, we should not believe it. It is the Bible written by men, directed and inspired by the Holy Spirit that is the perfect word from God. Everyone else makes mistakes. The Bible uses the word He to refer to the Holy Spirit. There must be a reason why God chose that word. So we should use it as well.
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake@xanga - Why would you not care about the Christians who did not author scripture? Don't they have worthwhile contributions to our lives? By the way, what does your canon look like? Do you believe the Holy Spirit inspires men and women who didn't write scripture? Perhaps church leaders in the first century? If so then shouldn't we consider their witness? How do you feel about theologians through time? Tertullian, John Chrystostom, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, N.T. Wright, etc. Do you care about them at all? Are they at all inspired? Should we consider their words and deeds or are we to leave ourselves to only be influence by scripture?
I find much trouble in the idea that we can not promote or participate in anything not contained in scripture. John said that all Jesus said and did could not be contained in books. Others in the early church (who lived during and shortly after the Nw Testament was being written and formed) wrote great works that were valued by the Church, considered inspired, and even contained extrabiblical accounts of Jesus and his ministry (that were widely accepted). Do you consider those works outside the realm of being possibly inspired by the Holy Spirit or of use to us? Should we not care for those writings? Why or why not?
Really interesting post, thanks!
@TheGreatBout@xanga - perhaps I don't care was a poor choice of words for me. I think we can learn what the Bible means, by reading the writings of those who have spent time researching the Bible. But our ultimate source of truth, should be that which is the infallible word from God. If any church father, teaches something that does not line up with the Bible, then that is a teaching not from God.
In this case, because God chose to have the masculine word translated as He, to refer to the Holy Spirit, then we should not seek to change that understanding.
@TheGreatBout@xanga - I say the Word of God is my authority, not the thoughts of men.
Home run, Travis! Thought- provoking post! God, all Three Persons, transcends gender and you have highlighted that fact. In my personal experience whenever the Holy Spirit has spoken to me I have always heard a distinctively male voice. Sometimes it's a whisper, other times loud and clear; but always male.
I would also point out the mystery of Jesus' conception when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and the power of the Most High overshadowed her, which seems to me suggests Holy Spirit maleness.
However, it was within the limitations of earthly language that Jesus spoke of the Paraclete as "He." And I would not deny the possibility that someone else might hear God speak in a female voice. We make a mistake when we try to box God up and limit our own thinking within the earthly limitations of scripture language. In other words Jesus Christ Himself is the Word of God; and holy scripture is only capable of giving us imperfect glimpses of Him.
...
This is not a new or unique point of view raised. It has been debated before (and still yet even) by those wishing to find something or promote their own agenda. (not accusing you, just stating a generality.) Others have already pointed out within Scripture how a female Holy Spirit would be incompatible with the word. Jesus refers to the first person of the trinity as "Father", but does He ever refer to the Holy Spirit as 'mother'? No.
When one claims to 'hear voices' and then say 'a man', I wonder since some females I know sound like males and vice versa. Also, I always wonder if our own biases affect how we 'hear' (perhaps imagine) such. Does the HS sound like John Wayne, or Gilbert Gottfried, or Lady Gaga, or Jimmy Carter, or Miley Cirus, or who? And, are we sure that this voice was the HS and not some demon?
The debate though is really one which takes a sinful turn and tries to place our own perceptions upon God. Let's let Him be who He is. If He says, then it is so. If He does not say, then let it be a mystery until we meet with Him. Let's instead turn to the work, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus for us and focus upon that, the one thing needful.
@StatelessPilot - "I think again we have to refer to the time the Bible was written. It was written in a time of male dominance and any female historical figures were conveniently left out of history."
Hmmmm. Which Bible do you read? Eve, Ruth, Deborah, Naomi, Miriam and so many others in the OT. Then there are the Marys, Elizabeth, Anna, and many others in the NT. As for the men, let's see.........Adam failed to teach his wife, Moses was a coward, Aaron was a wimp, David committed murder to get a babe, Peter was called a devil, Saul tried to destroy the church, Thomas would not believe without proof; the list could go on and on. If this was a male dominated recitation, then I'd hate to see a mixed gender one!
@TheGreatBout@xanga - I do see some of what your saying about the complete nature and nurture of God BUT, it's all pushed aside or "used" to promote the idea of being able to call the Holy Spirit a she. The scriptures are explicit about using male genders for all three persons of the godhead. So as the verses so many people point out above specifically call the Holy Spirit a "He" and the verses your highlighting are employing the use of things like personification, hyperbole, metaphor, and simile.
As for the idea of liberalism, I think that whenever we decide to run with our own presuppositions over and above the pursuit of the clear meaning of scripture we run the risk of causing confusion. Just think about how many (young) people will read this and run with the God/Female idea for all the wrong reasons. After all, we are wicked and sinful creatures who's ears are tickled by all sorts of things. Does the thought of that bother you? It would me and the thought of someone being stumbled by my ideas scares me to death. This post I think is like that. A post about the nature of God and how He transcends the idea of gender and is more complete than we realize would have been better received. However, the point your making is "it's ok to call the Holy Spirit a she." It's how everyone is reading this and it's not because were not bright enough to see your deeper meaning. We see the real thrust and at it's core it's liberalism.
You point out in some of your comments the writings and ideas of the early church fathers. It's always good to read what they said and learn from them. However, there is a reason that many of their ideas are not employed today. It's not because they failed to make a good arguments for their cases but rather were adequately refuted.
Grace and peace!
~Michael
@TheGreatBout@xanga - "I wasn't discussing the person of the Father
but rather the person of the Spirit. That being said, do you think all
the persons of God are best represented as males and if so why? (Because
Jesus said so doesn't count btw)."
You're right, I did accidentally forget to address the Holy Spirit specifically & I addressed (more or less) the trinity as a whole, but mostly God the Father. I still stand by what I said as a preface to what I'm about to say.
I believe that since Jesus referred to God as the "Father," we have to take a look at that when regarding the Holy Spirit. I'm sure that the Holy Spirit isn't like our souls, but being that I have a human mind instead of the mind of God - it is the closest relating thing that I can think of. Therefore, I would definitely see the Holy Spirit as "male" to a point because it is representative & part of God the Father.
I am female. My soul may not be a gender/sex, however it is a part of ME. It IS who I am. Therefore, I think of my soul as female. It's this same train of thought that would lead me to the conclusion of referring to the Holy Spirit as male.
In reference to your quote: "(Because
Jesus said so doesn't count btw)"
WOW. Seriously?! We know that Jesus is perfect. We know that Jesus is the Son of God who has met God in person & is a part of the Holy Trinity. So how in the world can you be a CHRISTian and yet say (in any reference on any subject) that "because Jesus said so doesn't count"?!?! If nothing else in this world matters - what Jesus has said to us and what Jesus has done as an example for us and His life & sacrifice - they are the ONLY thing that matters.
Btw - if Jesus had said specifically any kind of gender pronoun in direct relation to the Holy Spirit - then YES it would count. It would be the only thing that did count. Or are you going to be the child that tells Jesus (who has headship over you) that He is wrong & you are right?
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake@xanga - So what do we do with scriptures that reveal the feminine seeming nature of God (as opposed to the male seeming of course)? Can we not entertain those any further? I mean, clearly there were (highly) influential members of the early church that entertained these aspects of God's character. Are you okay with Origen and Jerome's statement and think it simply should replace the common practice of referring to the Spirit as "he" or would you say they are out of line and promoting fallacy or heresy with their statement? BTW I certainly don't think we should always refer to the Spirit as she. In fact, I think the term "she" should only be used when appropriate (like in Origen and Jerome's statement when they refer to the Holy Spirit as their Mother).
@PrincessVictoria_2004@xanga - That's good. But how do you define "he?" Do you think Origen and Jerome were pushing heresy or fallacy? Are these men who were closer to the apostles and their original teachings and writings missing the point or do we have a missed connection between us and them.
@MC_Shann@xanga - Theological discussion screws everyone up a bit. If we aren't in dangerous territory in discussing theology as a community then we're not getting deep enough into our theology. So does it bother me people may read my work and take it to bad places? No. I am aware everyone does that with all the information they gather and I'm not responsible for that entirely. I try to be responsible with what I write. I don't think I've brought anything too damaging to the table here. If I have, there is grace. Also, I'm here to engage in conversation to make sure people don't get the wrong idea. Not only that but I believe this is a community of people willing to invest in one another and ensure that when people grab an idea they can be nurtured to drop the idea, develop it, or embrace it. I trust the Revelife community enough to bring up things like this.
My point isn't that it's okay to call the Holy Spirit "she" (though I do believe that is true at times) but rather my point is that we need to examine the nature of God and not forget who he is in his fullness and mystery and we can't box him in. If you think it would have been better coming from a different angle then it may be beneficial for us as a theological community for you to write up that position and present it to us. I'd be interested in reading it. I think we agree more than we disagree on the issue honestly.
You don't see the "real thrust" because liberalism is not "at its core."
@MyTwoCentss@xanga - Yes, wow and seriously. I'm all for trusting Jesus at his word. Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that if we want to make good theological arguments we have to have explanations of why Jesus says what he says and what the implications are of what he says and whether or not his words tell the entire story or present all the needed information for us to make a conclusion. If we simply say "because Jesus said so" we can conclude that the Holy Spirit is a man because Jesus refers to the Spirit as "He" but we know that the Spirit is not a male organism like humans or animals. The Spirit is not a male human being. Not an animal. He is something else entirely. But we don't get that from Jesus. So pointing to Jesus' statement [by itself] isn't sufficient for our purposes. More words are needed for the discussion. If this were untrue then Christian bookstores would be void. As it stands, many Christians through time have stated many things. Commentaries are important. Apologetics are important. Philosophy, mathematics, and literary analysis are important. We can rest on Jesus' words as truth but that doesn't mean they are the entire discussion. That's all I meant. Logic and reasoning count too. I'm not at all saying Jesus is wrong so please don't think I'm trying to go in that direction. I'm just trying to encourage us to venture into good discussion that doesn't consist of "Cuz he said so" and no follow through. And I don't mean that in an accusatory way against you by any means as though I expected such a shallow answer from you. I didn't. I was just trying to push FFWD on the discussion.
Why are you tired of the argument that focuses on the notion that men have been the dominate of the two genders throughout history and that has an affect on literature, teachings, etc.? Do think there is any merit in it? If the Gospels were written today do you think there would be more female presence within the scripture (be it authors, leadership, mentions, references like Origen's, or even more gender neutral references to followers of Christ?)
@HLPU@xanga - Jesus may have referred to the Spirit of Mother. But you're right that it is not in scripture. I wouldn't claim that he did either. But I have to believe it is acceptable to use extrabiblical language that supports biblical notions (that the Holy Spirit nurtures us and is like our Mother). I also agree that a female Holy Spirit is incompatible with scripture. So is a male Holy Spirit. I don't believe the Spirit is confined to a creaturely gender, that is, the gender of something created by the Trinity. I know that is semantics but I wanted to be clear.
I love your voice questions. That's worth it's own discussion IMO. Please write that blog. Get a poll or something. Who hears audible voices from God, what does it sound like, etc. Ohhh that'd be a fun one! I've never dealt with the audible. I'd say it was similar to audible once, initially, but whenever I talk about the instance I can't avoid describing it more as a feeling or stirring more than a sound, though it was certainly voice. Like a blast underwater hitting you. there is a sound but it's not really the sound that you experience.
You said "If He says, then it is so. If He does not say, then let it be a mystery until we meet with Him." I'm down with that. Of course, I think the discussion is still worthwhile, even if it is an old discussion (because we are new people). I'm all about accepting the mystery of God. That is what actually spurred me to write this. Ultimately that is where we MUST end up.
@HLPU@xanga - I wanted to comment on your statement to StaelessPilot because that is the interesting thing about scripture; It is incredibly merciful to women throughout the entire narrative but it isn't as merciful to women as tend to be nowadays (depending). As a piece of literature it is kind to women in ways surrounding cultures were not. Yet, there is advancement throughout the books in regards to the treatment of women. I believe that the advances don't stop with the canonization of the New Testament. I mean, Christians are now abolitionists in regards to slavery and that wasn't so at the time of the New Testament writings. Perhaps the same is to be true in our approach of women (if we follow the patterns and movement of the scriptures and revelations from God). There is a tension. It is progressive and revelation but it isn't ideal or full necessarily. Though, it is perfect. Perfect in substance and timing for teaching, rebuking, and edification (and all those wonderful things). I believe it is also to spur us on to continue advancing. Where that lands in this particular discussion, I suppose, is forcing the question of "Are all the persons of God referred to as 'he' because God is truly best represented as a male to all humanity through time or because that was perfect at that time and place and it is still good and purposeful now?" and "If the gospel were being written now how (if at all) would it look different?"
@TheGreatBout@xanga - God is complete. He is all powerful, all knowing, and exists everywhere. He is the perfection, that we are told to seek here on earth. We are told to be perfect, as our Heavenly Father is perfect. Here on earth, that perfection, among other things is split between the two genders. Women are more loving and nurturing(sp?) while guys tend to be more physical, and less loving. But God is not that way. We see two gnders, God is one gender with both natures. He is the whole package basically.
So, how does this answer your question? You asked what do we do with the verses that talk about the loving nature of God. We answer it not by calling the Holy Spirit a she, but we explain these verses, by what we know, that God is the perfect being. He is loving sometimes, and other times He is more driven and physical and even jealous. The natures that we see split between the two genders, is one in Christ. Only when parents are married and one in Christ, can we see the best glimpse of this on Earth. We can look at our earthly parents and between the two of them, we can get a glimpse of the perfection of God.
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake@xanga - I 100% agree with your first paragraph. I'm just not convinced that outlawing the term "she" for the Holy Spirit is we embrace the perfection and otherness of God. I think it enhances that embrace (again, when used appropriately). Always using "he" has the potential to land us in a trap of missing out on the truth and mystery of God's perfection and otherness. Don't you think?
I know this can become a "slippery slope" and beg us to draw lines eventually if the discussion continues (I don't think we'll go that far) but my intention is only to ask questions, examine, and challenge ourselves to see of God what you're stating here. Thanks for engaging by the way.