Biblical Language Inclusive language, as applied to persons in order to achieve equality and respect, is not the issue addressed in this paper. Inclusive language for God is our focus. Radical Christian feminists have argued that inclusive language is problematic for the church, that women in the church have been oppressed since the first century, and that language has contributed to that oppression. "The feminist claim is that all language about God is analogical and metaphorical, and that therefore it can be changed at will to overcome the church's patriarchalism and foster women's liberation," says theologian, Elizabeth Achtemeieri. Letty M. Russell suggested that women were allowed to alter language about God because they were "theomorphic, made in God's image."ii We acknowledge that there has been, and still is, within the church, a failure on many occasions to include, and fully accept the gifts of women as being equal to those of men. We must deal with false notions about women and women's issues that may reside within the Christian community. Without even realizing it, our conceptualization about women can be affected by cultural and unbiblical stereotypes. We need to be open for God's Spirit to show us these areas--and be willing to make genuine changes. However, attempts by radical feminists to shape God into the feminine image by renaming and redefining Him is not only antithetical to sound Christian doctrine, but destructive to the adherents. As Mary Kassian states, "This is a serious matter. For if feminism's altered view of God is out of synchronization with who God really is, as He has revealed Himself, then it is not really God whom they are imaging and worshiping; and this is the idolatry which the Bible condemns."iii The Altered Images of Inclusive Language In The Feminist Gospel, Kassian identifies several areas where inclusive language for God alters the Christian understanding of God, and diminishes our relationship with Him. I recommend this book, not only for this topic, but for its thorough coverage of the incursion of radical feminist thought into the church from the secular culture. Each of the topics below are expanded upon in the book. The following are excerpts from the section titled "The Altered Images of Inclusive Language."
Expanded Notes This section includes notes from an earlier document (February 2000 letter to network), with added support material to expand these concepts. The following points are critical to the Christian, Biblical understanding of the character and nature of God and shape the theology of sound Christian doctrine. Several sources are referenced to support each point. The feminist perspective on these points is given to contrast against the evangelical view. God is neither male nor female. Contrary to feminist thought, Biblical scholars agree universally that the God of the Bible has no sexuality. "'Since God is male,' radical feminist Mary Daly says, 'the male is God.' Feminist theologian Anne Carr writes, 'God as father rules over the world, holy fathers rule over the church, clergy fathers over laity, males over females, husbands over wives and children, man over the created world.' Such a hierarchical worldview must be abolished say these feminists, and one way to do that is by changing our language."v
Theologian Elizabeth Achtemeier asserts, "The feminist claim is that all language about God is analogical and metaphorical, and that therefore it can be changed at will to overcome the church's patriarchalism and foster women's liberation. The radical feminists therefore seek to eliminate all masculine terminology used of God, either by supplementing it with feminine terminology or by using only neuter or female images for the deity."ix Roland Frye notes, "Feminine God-language has been based upon misreading figurative speech…. In feminist interpretation, simile and metaphor are confused and even conflated so that a simile is assumed to do what a metaphor in fact is designed to do. In this way, occasional biblical comparisons of the divine to a mother are given the same force as if they were names or identifications."x The references below help to clarify the differences between metaphor and simile and to flesh out their application in Scripture.
Radical feminists do not accept the concept of "divine revelation." Instead, they embrace the concept of "progressive revelation." The feminist view holds that Scripture must be read and interpreted in light of one's experience and cultural setting. Author Mary Kassian states, for example, that (Mary) "Daly wanted to discard the static worldview which regarded divine revelation as a closed event. Instead, she proposed a dynamic model of revelation that would respond to changes in culture and contain a 'radical openness to the facts of contemporary experience.'"xiv Roland Frye asserts that, "Rosemary Radford Reuther…appraises the adequacy of biblical witness by reference to how well it supports feminist theology…." Frye quotes Reuther as confessing, "Feminist theology must create a new textual base, a new canon…. Feminist theology cannot be done from the existing base of the Christian Bible."xvii The Christian Church must refuse this deprecation of divine revelation, for it is the cornerstone of the Judeo/Christian faith. God has disclosed Himself through history and ultimately through the revelation of God in Christ. Christianity is not a man- (or woman) constructed religion, but a living faith that embraces the divine revelation unto salvation.
Inclusive Language for God destroys sound Christian doctrine. God's revelation of Himself defines who we are as the people of God. To attempt to alter God's identity to fit our experience or gender requirements would be disastrous. And, God cannot be named by impersonal, metaphorical language. Feminist Letty Russell claims that, "To use only one (metaphor for God) and claim it cannot be changed is to fall into idolatry."xxi However, Mary Kassian so aptly points out, Russell "believed it was essential to alter the language used to refer to God in order to reflect a feminist understanding of God. But by changing the Biblical symbols, Russell altered and renamed God. This is a serious matter. For if feminism's altered view of God is out of synchronization with who God really is, as He has revealed Himself, then it is not really God whom they are imaging and worshiping; and this is the idolatry which the Bible condemns."xxii The God of the Bible is a God fully acquainted with the power of words. He spoke the worlds into existence by His word (2 Peter 3:5). He made His full revelation known through the living "Word," Jesus Christ (John 1:1). And, He presently "upholds all things by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3). Careful theological examination assures us that the words by which God has chosen to disclose Himself to humankind were intentionally chosen to assure that the revelation was properly transmitted and to make certain that the true and living God not be confused with any human-constructed deities.
If it feels so "right," why is it so wrong? In this section, we want to address how the use of inclusive language for God leads women (and men) astray from sound Christian doctrine. What on the surface seems innocent enough has profound implications for the faith. Many women who embrace radical feminist thought on inclusive language for God have expressed the "comfort" they find in addressing God as "Mother" or "Goddess." Carolyn Bohler, an Associate Professor at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, shared one of her personal experiences in writing. "One day when I was serving a local church, while driving from one pastoral visit to the next, I prayed regarding the conceiving of a child. I had prayed with "God" before about this longing. This time I gathered the courage to say "Goddess." I said the name out loud several times, to increase my courage and to state boldly my claim to Her. I felt made in the image of Deity, and I felt that Divine Wisdom for my very female processes was somehow in touch with me. She had created so much--and I, in her image, was longing to carry on Her processes."xxv Ms. Bohler's experience contains the essence of the very real problems inclusive language for God imposes. It Leads To Goddess Worship Letty Russell shared how the assertion "if
God is male, then the male is God," leads feminists to speak of the Goddess.
Russell states, "Even from within the Christian tradition, feminist
theologians have come to recognize the legitimacy of encountering the divine
as goddess." Goddess worship is an ancient practice revisited. Does this changing of the gods meet the needs of women? In response to that question, Dale Youngs observes, "It is also worth noting that goddess worship can work against feminist goals. In no pagan religion was the goddess the Chieftess; rather, she always played a subordinate role…. Further, societies that worshipped goddesses were far more oppressive and patriarchal than that of the Old Testament.xxvii Roland Frye also identifies this misperception regarding the goodness of the goddess. "The ancient goddess cults and other polytheistic religions did not by any means 'liberate' women, but today we are being called to revive them in one form or another so as to provide a higher status for women. W.A. Visser 't Hooft comments on this anomaly: 'The paradoxical element in this situation is that precisely when the great issue is the recognition of the full human dignity of women, there is a returning interest in those ancient religious systems, in which women were not fully regarded as persons.'"xxviii Goddess Worship is Intertwined with Paganism Although radical feminists try to incorporate the goddess concept, or the feminization of God, into the Christian faith and the Christian Church, it is totally unacceptable. Why? Because, the God of the Judeo/Christian faith has so clearly rejected this association. "The call for goddess worship is no mere corrective to the worship of Yahweh; it is a call to a new religion. More precisely, it is an old religion in new clothes. In it, the goddess dwelt with a male god as his consort. Pantheons of male and female deities were, like humans, sexually active. The fertility of humanity and the earth were thought to depend on the fertility and eroticism of the gods. …This idea of an impregnating male God and a female deity giving birth to the world appears nowhere in Scripture. While it is true that goddess worship was common, even popular, in the religions of the Sumerians, Egyptians, Canaanites, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, it is regarded only in a negative perspective by the Old Testament writers. Israelite religion, while informing us about the maternal characteristics of God, strongly opposed goddess worship."xxix "Biblical scholar Elizabeth Achtemeier puts it this way, 'It is not that the prophets were slaves to their patriarchal culture, as some feminists hold. And it is not that the prophets could not imagine God as female: they were surrounded by people who so imagined their deities. It is rather that the prophets, as well as the Deuteronomists and Priestly writers and Jesus and Paul, would not use such language, because they knew and had ample evidence from the religions surrounding them that female language for the deity results in a basic distortion of the nature of God and of his relation to his creation.'"xxx Sexuality and Bodily Functions Gain Prominence We began this section with an excerpt from theologian Carolyn Bohler, who recounted her personal experience of praying to the Goddess. Bohler shared that as she prayed to the Goddess, "I felt made in the image of Deity, and I felt that Divine Wisdom for my very female processes was somehow in touch with me. She had created so much--and I, in Her image, was longing to carry on Her processes."xxxi The stir created by the controversial "Milk and Honey" ceremony at the 1993 Re-Imagining Conference centered partly around the "physical" aspects of the ceremony.
Subsequent Re-Imagining conferences continued this bodily theme. The 1996 conference featured a session on "Re-Imagining Power as Embodied Spirituality." The conference study book rooted this session in the Song of Songs and explained that "erotic human love is not only similar to love of the divine, it is the same experience." Keynote speaker Letty Russell, a professor of theology at Yale Divinity School, reaffirmed that "the erotic is the fullest expression of God's love." The negative reaction to the milk and honey ritual was dismissed as "fear of women controlling their own source of pleasure."xxxiii Worship of the Goddess Ultimately Leads to Self-Deification Theologian Mary Kassian explains the progression toward self-deification realized by feminists as they embraced the goddess. "Initially feminists reacted with scorn to the goddess and goddess worship…. But feminists learned that goddess worship was not worship of an external deity; it was, in essence, worship of oneself. The goddess was merely a symbol that acknowledged the legitimacy of self-worship…. According to Carol Christ, the symbol of goddess affirmed female power, the female body, the female will, and women's bonds and heritage. She argued that the goddess symbol was of vital importance to women…. Most feminists identified the goddess as the power that flowed through the universe and could be tapped and realized in the individual female psyche. A few believed that the goddess was divine female--an actual 'personification who could be invoked in prayer and ritual.'"xxxiv Achtemeier shows the progression of the logic that leads to self-godding. "But if the creation has issued forth from the body of the deity, it shares in deity's substance; deity is in, through, and under all things, and therefore everything is divine…. If God is identified with his creation, we finally make ourselves gods and goddesses--the ultimate and primeval sin (Gen. 3)."xxxv Achtemeier continues her argument to show the fallacy of such thinking. "The Bible…is rigorous in its opposition to every other religion and cultic practice that identifies creation with creator…. God…is in no way contained in or bound up with or dependent on or revealed through his creation. God creates the world outside of himself, by the instrument of his Word…. The world does not emanate out of the being of God or contain some part of him within it. He has not implanted divinity within any part of the creation, not even in human beings, and therefore no created thing or person can be claimed to be divine."xxxvi At the Heart of Radical Feminism's Spirituality: The Politics of Power "Feminist theorists presented the spiritual aspect of feminism as being necessary for political action. Spiritualism was presented as the energy that would empower women to continue pursuing their feminist social and political agendas."xxxvii The Politics of Women's Spirituality was edited by Charlene Spretnak, and published in 1982. Spretnak agreed with contributors to this volume that a metaphysical mysticism would allow feminists to see their inner power and give them strength to push for the prevalence of the feminist vision:
One bold presenter at the 1993 Re-Imagining Conference dared to speak clearly of the feminist goal for power. Johanna Bos, native of the Netherlands and professor of Old Testament at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, declared, "…Sisters and brothers, we have come to the center of the power, not just to have a piece of the pie. Not just to point out that we belong here too. We are not here to join the great pissing contest. We have come here in cognizance of the cries of the most vulnerable among us, to empower them to let their voices take on a sound of their own…. We have not come here so much to jump on the feminist band wagon, but to upset the patriarchy apple cart." Admittedly, some aspects of the feminist movement have brought about favorable changes, and have been instrumental in bringing about equality and the full recognition of women's abilities. However the subverted grasp for power has been costly for women who have fully embraced the radical feminists' agenda.
Is the Gospel Adequate for Women? A Christian Women's Declaration, published by The Ecumenical Coalition on Women and Society, makes bold statements about Christian women who have embraced the Gospel of Christ as proclaimed by the Christian Church since its inception.
The Declaration goes on to affirm the Triune God as He has revealed Himself; to affirm the authority of the Scriptures and the doctrines represented in the ecumenical creeds of the Church; to affirm the natural created order; to acknowledge human sinfulness; to affirm that we can achieve the highest and best of ourselves only through obedience to God and service to others; and finally, to affirm the liberty that comes from the reconciling truth that we have received in Christ.xli In essence, this document declares, "Yes,
the Gospel of Christ is wholly adequate for women." To that we can only say, "Amen."
i Elizabeth Achtemeier, "Why God Is Not
Mother," Christianity Today, August 16, 1993, p. 17. |
| Article from May/June Good News Magazine, by L. Faye Short, President, RENEW Network |