"it is She that hath made us,
and not we, ourselves."
the hours' breathe like smoke from the fireplace,
drab and familiar,
dry and commanding.
I'm fondling spirits against their will,
long forgotten sins,
like we always did.
now that I can fin'lly use my tongue,
dress in Her forest,
die in my icebox,
I have lost what I wanted to say.
Locked and tossed away.
Little by little.
"fill my cup, Lady."
14 comments:
Obviously, not the GOD of the Bible.
Why is that so obvious to you?
Psalm 100:3
3 Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
You quoted this with a capital 'She' which sort makes me want to conclude that you are changing God into a female?
God has only revealed Himself in the masculin, and we should never change what Scripture has made clear already!
At the end of your post, you quote:
"fill my cup, Lady"
GOD is no 'lady'.
In Scripture, GOD is married to Israel, His wife.
In Scripture, The Lord Jesus Christ is betrothed to His Bride, The Church.
We also see the image of Christ and His Bride, in the union between a man and a woman. The man should be the head of the woman, as is Christ the Head of The Church.
I would never be one to try and sway your interpretation of my attempt at a poetic writing, but I have a feeling that if you believe that the masculinity of God is an issue with which you're unwilling to part you won't be enjoying most of the posts that I make. As one of my Bible and Religion professors loved to say, "Translation is interpretation."
So, do you imagine GOD to be female?
Would that not be a sort of spiritual lesbianism,
i.e. 'Her' having a wife called Israel,
and 'Her' being betrothed to the virgin Bride called The Church?
I believe that God is neither male or female. I believe that the scriptural writers were using a patriarchal analogy in a patriarchal society. I don't think they were trying to express the masculinity of God, but rather trying to express the type of love God has for God's people and for God's church.
The idea of "God as Father or Groom" is a term of respect that many of the time period would understand, given that women were considered inferior in that time period. This term of respect was something everyone was familiar with and would make sense to the reader (or most likely listener, since most people were illiterate).
In this series (this post, and the earlier posts: I., II., III., and IV.) of attempted poetic writings, I decided to refer to God as feminine for a number of reasons, some artistic and some personal. But one of them, is to try to "expand the space of the talkaboutable" as the writer David Dark says. To keep a dialogue open with people who disagree with what I believe. In a constant attempt to learn something from everyone.
this is actually a serious question... stephen, do you believe God has a penis? if so, what would he use it for? or do you believe you dont need a penis to be a male? if so, this conversation is going to get reeaaalllly interesting.
I would agree that God is not male (as Bradford points out the obvious distinctions - the assumption that God has XY chromosomes or male biology is ridiculous), and frankly, I agree with much of Andrew's sentiment about the reasons the authors of Scripture primarily relates God through the male gender. Analogy is helpful.
I still ascribe the masculine description, as a personal choice, because I think it still carries legitimate meaning and is a helpful way of explaining our relation to Him. (See, I just said Him.)
But the reality underlying this argument is that any attempt to make God "male" is absurd.
Could I suggest that for Stephen and I, we feel much more comfortable with this designation because it works for us still in our context - rather than saying that someone else's interpretation is "not the God of the Bible".
Jesus uses a metaphor that he would've taken Jerusalem under his wing "as a mother hen", and we would still say that it is the Jesus of the Bible. Also, there is reference to Jesus role as the submissive agent in the Trinity complementing God's lead. This has traditionally been viewed as a feminine quailty, but should that bring Jesus' masculinity into question? I see no reason.
Analogies matter, and I believe our opinions on the topic matter, but the initial statement may have been a bit strong, Stephen.
Very helpful insight, Aaron. I did forget about the Mother Hen analogy. I 'preciate you bringing it up.
In some sense, for me, using the masculine pronouns for God's name is another way to usurp the power from women. Constantly referring to God as a "She" instead of a "He" would be grading if for thousands of years we denied the possibility that any of God's best qualities could be female qualities as well.
I definitely see the logic why people would use "Him" and am not trying to imply at all that anyone is intentionally attempting to remove female power. But, the way we are using our language so often effects the outcome of our philosophy and practice. It's subtle, but I believe it to be true.
For me, using non-gender pronouns or just always referring to God as "God" helps a lot.
I think my attempt at a poetic writing can be interpreted however you'd like. But, I think the point I was trying to get across by using a female designation for God was to give perspective on the personage of the attempted poetic writing.
The person in these manic passages has obviously spent a long time trying to escape something. The God-illusions in these attempted poetic writings don't just represent God. They also represent resentfulness. Guilt. A history that had fallen apart. And maybe God's gender is being associated with the part of the person's life that had gone to complete shit.
At any rate I find that "I." puts "V." in perspective a lot. If you missed it:
http://jonathanandrewcamp.blogspot.com/2011/09/i.html
GOD is spirit.
Yes, GOD is not a sexual being in terms that fit human kind which He created.
He created them male and female.
I am merely pointing you to the fact that GOD has always revealed Himself in the masculine, never in the female. He did use analogies, which are not to be taken literally, of a mother bird figure and others, but that was only analogous.
When angels are mentioned in The Bible, they are always pictured as young men.
When GOD sends His Son, His Only Son, Jesus Christ, into the world, Jesus is male. Jesus has male genetalia. If Jesus didn't, He would cease to be human, and He would cease to be GOD.
The reason why GOD revealed Himself like this is because that is the way it is. He chose it, how can we rebel against it?
Andrew, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be in conversation with you. Not something I can say about David Dark, a old friend of mine. We had no such interesting conversation about these topics, sadly.
I appreciate your thoughts and glad you stumbled upon the blog, Stephen.
Post a Comment