The nature of God

[Alex Michael Rusanen]

Many modern wiccans and feminists have the idea that the Christian Church has undermined the role of the woman; but when it comes to the nature of God, should we say that the nature of God is masculine? - Personally i have always had the idea that God transcends sex, because he is the source of all things and utterly One existing in Trinity.

If God transcends sex then, why do we only emphasize the "masculiness" of God?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Others will no doubt provide better and more in-depth information, but one reason is simply because God uses terms like Father and Son, not Parent and Child. God became incarnate as a male. He seems to think it is important. Who are we to gainsay HIM?

[John Charmley]

To add to what Herman says - and he is quite right to emphasise that we encounter God on His terms, not our own, it is quite wrong to think that a Faith that honours the most holy and blessed Theotokos as Christianity does in any way undermines the female, or underrates the part played by women; indeed, even the most cursory encounter with any Orthodox Church would confirm that women play a vital and most important role in any parish.

Of course, if what is meant is that Orthodoxy does not subscribe to the modern western feminist notion that gender differentiation is in some way wrong, then Orthodoxy would argue that that western notion, running against the experience of the whole of human experience, is itself a fiction - and like most fictions, something it is unwise to try to turn into lived experience. But that's a whole other story.

In Christ,

John

[Olga]

It constantly amuses me to hear the hardline feminists ignorantly berate us for supposedly diminishing women. Let's not forget that it was the women (not the male disciples, not even St Peter, nor St Andrew the First-called) who remained at the crucifixion and death of Christ (the only male disciple was John); it was to the myrrh-bearers and Mary Magdalene who first saw the risen Christ (St Mary Magdalene is often called the Apostle to the Apostles), and, of course, the almost innumerable female saints gracing the Church.

Others have constructed entire theologies around the notion that Wisdom is the "feminine side" of God. While the word has feminine gender in most languages, this is merely a grammatical gender, and any association with a "feminine Christ" as some espouse (yes!) is quite erroneous. What, then, can we make of another apellation for Christ, Logos (Word)? Logos is of the masculine gender in Greek, and is of a variety of grammatical genders in other languages, ancient and modern.

What is my point? God the Father is indeed beyond gender in the human sense, as He is utterly beyond our comprehension. God the Son took on the form of a male human being at His incarnation. For the incarnation of God to occur, God the Son had to be born of a woman, or none of this would make sense in feeble, inadequate human terms. If God was to become incarnate, being born of a woman, He would have had to have a father - not a human father, but, as we know, a divine Father.

[Nina]

Exactly! And since Christ taught us "Our Father, Who art in Heaven...", it is only pride (as always) that makes people think of such things and dispute what God taught us. This happens always in all subjects and matters of life and Church. And in addition feminists are usually new agers, pagans etc. These human inventions (religions) worship the female goddess cult. But to try to apply this system for all people and raise the voice for it against Christianity?! I never understood this! Also I never understand why do such females suffer so much from the complex of inferiority! They should just cast their pride away and keep their place how God created them.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Others might have different experiences, but the wiccans and neopagans I have come across are basically "designer god" worshippers. That is they pick and choose from various panoplies to customize a god (or gods) of their own creation. The basic premise seems to be that what they are really worshipping is the "inner divine" which is themselves. Wasn't that the "original" sin of Lucifer, substituting self for God? They are, ultimately, athiests pretending to be "Thiests". If there is no God, then any god will do, just like "if you don't know where you are going, any path will take you there."

[Mourad Mankarios]

I think this issue brings many questions to the fore that require consideration. Namely, is this issue of gender and the Bible simply a transference of social and cultural constructs that have been valid for thousands of years and have only been questioned or come under much ambiguity in recent times. Traditional male and female roles which were simply accepted without question for centuries have now, in our times, changed dramatically. Many Biblical scholars, Orthodox and otherwise have begun to make use of more gender neutral language both in translation and exegesis.

In the past women have been considered inferior and even till recently the chattels of men. They have been denied the right to vote, the right to education and the right to employment. Women have been and still often are stereotypically characterised as both intellectually and morally lacking. In pagan times, many temples attributed to godesses where the sites of prostitution and sexual immorality. Till today women are often labelled with many of the same negative traits. No wonder that both Divine revelation as well as the ancient church decided to use masculine language exclusively to refer to the Divine. However, the question would be that with the many advancements of our times in terms of women's rights would such constructs and hence the results of such, in terms of religious language, be still valid.

If at all, how would such gender inclusivity affect either theology or the church? I think our understanding needs to be based on strong and solid foundations which extrapolate our reasonings to either be compatible or incongruent with Orthodox theology.

[David Naess]

Any attempt to superimpose attributes on God only diminishes the Glory of God to the conceivability of the human mind.

Even saying: "God is" is not enough because that leaves a dangling, implied, unasked question of "God is what?"

The only way I have found of expressing the unlimited Absolute is by using the double negative.

i.e.; God is not not!

Wherever you look, God is there.