![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kitewithfishThere are several approaches to talking about God which attempt to be gender inclusive (with the goal of not excluding anyone from identification with God by removing an ability to relate to God based on gender.) This is less about God, who is generally held to be above gender/without gender/wholly unrelated to gender in Godsself.*
Sample sentence with traditional gender assignment for God as male-
"God loves all His children, and we should return that love to Him without reservation, as He Himself has done, loving us as a father."
No Pronouns- This method would remove all pronouns referring to God because of the problem of the fact that the gender-neutral pronoun in English does not really apply to persons/intellegent beings, and God is generally considered to have attributes at least symbolically/analogically equal or greater to those of a person.
-Example: "God loves all God's children, and we should return that love to God without reservation, as God Godself has done, loving us as a parent."
-Benefits- Removes the whole concept of gender from God, which is appropriate to most scholarly approaches to God that I've seen. Works that specifically argue for God's masculinity (not that I have found any, but I do not doubt that there are some) would not use this, but as most theologians these days are not that interested in proving God has a penis, I think that this works pretty well. One can argue that it also has the virtue of including those whose gender is not covered by the traditional male/female polarity
-Problems I have with it- I don't think "It sounds weird" is a good argument against this- things sounds weird until you get used to them, then you get it over it. The virtues of inclusivity are greater than those of aesthetic sensitivities where people are feeling victimized by the language of religion.
The problem that I have with this is just.... I don't like it. I don't know why I don't like it. It bothers me that I don't like it, because I am of the opinion that this is probably the best answer, including male, female, and those who identify as anywhere on the spectrum between those poles, and those who don't find themselves in that spectrum at all. I think it's a good system, I would fight for it, but I still just kind of love the other option more.
-----
Mixing pronouns This method alternates the normative male/female pronouns (not the neuter pronoun 'it.')
-Example: "God loves all Her Children, and we should return that love to Him without reservation, as She Herself has done, loving us as a Father."
-Benefits- Where traditional language has defaulted to male when talking about God, this method does not default to either traditionally normative gender, and moves between them, explicitly including both. This allows the writer to specifically highlight aspects of the divine nature that have most emotional impact when discussed as female, and others that have more emotional impact when discussed as male. In explicitly including the feminine pronouns, it works to correct the historical exclusion of the feminine aspect of God and allows women, who often feel disaffected with masculinist language, to fully identify with God as feminine.
In juxtaposing the concepts of male and female in God, it highlights how neither gender is perfectly appropriate, and may incite reflection on how normative gender roles are not perfectly appropriate for humans either.
Speaking as a religious cis-female, I still really really fucking love it when someone talks about God as "she", particularly the Holy Spirit, but God in general as well.
-Problems- While this method allows the inclusion of the genders for which we have pronouns, it excludes the genders for which we do not yet have standard English pronouns, and those people who do not identify with any gendering at all.
It is also subject to the author's projection of sexist ideology onto God Godself, using feminine pronouns to speak of traditionally female-ascribed roles like nurturing. (Personal experience: God's love and nurture is often talked of in feminine language, if not pronouns, and I have never heard anyone talk about a wrathful God with feminine imagery. Mind you, I don't hear a lot of people talking about God's wrath, period, but I think the point still stands.) It could be used as a cover for traditional ideas about gender roles and assignment.
May also be confusing to read aloud.
*I'm not going to talk about Jesus here, because there is little argument that Jesus was historically correctly identified as a cis-male. The role of being human and the redeemer of humanity are gender neutral, but I've yet to find any scholarly argument over what gender Jesus was assigned/identified with, and so I'm going to set that aside. If anyone knows of any essays/books that discuss Jesus's gender as a topic of discussion, that would be wicked cool to read so please point me in that direction.
Sample sentence with traditional gender assignment for God as male-
"God loves all His children, and we should return that love to Him without reservation, as He Himself has done, loving us as a father."
No Pronouns- This method would remove all pronouns referring to God because of the problem of the fact that the gender-neutral pronoun in English does not really apply to persons/intellegent beings, and God is generally considered to have attributes at least symbolically/analogically equal or greater to those of a person.
-Example: "God loves all God's children, and we should return that love to God without reservation, as God Godself has done, loving us as a parent."
-Benefits- Removes the whole concept of gender from God, which is appropriate to most scholarly approaches to God that I've seen. Works that specifically argue for God's masculinity (not that I have found any, but I do not doubt that there are some) would not use this, but as most theologians these days are not that interested in proving God has a penis, I think that this works pretty well. One can argue that it also has the virtue of including those whose gender is not covered by the traditional male/female polarity
-Problems I have with it- I don't think "It sounds weird" is a good argument against this- things sounds weird until you get used to them, then you get it over it. The virtues of inclusivity are greater than those of aesthetic sensitivities where people are feeling victimized by the language of religion.
The problem that I have with this is just.... I don't like it. I don't know why I don't like it. It bothers me that I don't like it, because I am of the opinion that this is probably the best answer, including male, female, and those who identify as anywhere on the spectrum between those poles, and those who don't find themselves in that spectrum at all. I think it's a good system, I would fight for it, but I still just kind of love the other option more.
-----
Mixing pronouns This method alternates the normative male/female pronouns (not the neuter pronoun 'it.')
-Example: "God loves all Her Children, and we should return that love to Him without reservation, as She Herself has done, loving us as a Father."
-Benefits- Where traditional language has defaulted to male when talking about God, this method does not default to either traditionally normative gender, and moves between them, explicitly including both. This allows the writer to specifically highlight aspects of the divine nature that have most emotional impact when discussed as female, and others that have more emotional impact when discussed as male. In explicitly including the feminine pronouns, it works to correct the historical exclusion of the feminine aspect of God and allows women, who often feel disaffected with masculinist language, to fully identify with God as feminine.
In juxtaposing the concepts of male and female in God, it highlights how neither gender is perfectly appropriate, and may incite reflection on how normative gender roles are not perfectly appropriate for humans either.
Speaking as a religious cis-female, I still really really fucking love it when someone talks about God as "she", particularly the Holy Spirit, but God in general as well.
-Problems- While this method allows the inclusion of the genders for which we have pronouns, it excludes the genders for which we do not yet have standard English pronouns, and those people who do not identify with any gendering at all.
It is also subject to the author's projection of sexist ideology onto God Godself, using feminine pronouns to speak of traditionally female-ascribed roles like nurturing. (Personal experience: God's love and nurture is often talked of in feminine language, if not pronouns, and I have never heard anyone talk about a wrathful God with feminine imagery. Mind you, I don't hear a lot of people talking about God's wrath, period, but I think the point still stands.) It could be used as a cover for traditional ideas about gender roles and assignment.
May also be confusing to read aloud.
*I'm not going to talk about Jesus here, because there is little argument that Jesus was historically correctly identified as a cis-male. The role of being human and the redeemer of humanity are gender neutral, but I've yet to find any scholarly argument over what gender Jesus was assigned/identified with, and so I'm going to set that aside. If anyone knows of any essays/books that discuss Jesus's gender as a topic of discussion, that would be wicked cool to read so please point me in that direction.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-05 05:06 am (UTC)also i think i generally agree with your feelings about the various systems - i viscerally adore the idea of god as "she," i love the idea of no pronouns for god but still mourn a bit because it just rings so wrongly, mixed pronouns are a neat idea but the binary is not cool, etc.
...useless comment is useless. i am just delighted at this sort of thing, that's all.