2A The nature of God Flashcards
What evidence is there for God as male?
• The original Bible languages, Hebrew and Greek, spoke of God as ‘Father’, and Jesus as the ‘Son of God’
• HS = referred to in masculine terms
• In NT, G’s fatherhood conveys two distinct ideas:
1) G as creator of world
2) R.ship btwn G + J conveys an approachable, personal deity
• ‘Father’ suggests lordship over creation + loving kindness
What Bible passages portray God as female?
- Isiah 66:13 - described as a comforting mother
- Matthew 23:37 - J uses a motherly illustration for himself
- Luke 15:8-10 - compares G to a woman searching for a lost coin
How does the Bible make it clear that God was neither male nor female?
- John 4:24 - J said that “God is spirit” (a spirit has no gender)
- Galatians 3:28 - “there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
- Genesis 1:27 - “male and female he created them.” G made all people in his image and likeness
Who is Sallie McFauge?
• An American theologian with an ecofeminist perspective
Outline McFague’s argument.
- All lang. about G = metaphorical; names/titles (Father, King, etc) = simply ways that we think about G, and say very little about his true nature
- We often turn the metaphors into idols and worship the metaphor instead of G; many metaphors become outdated with time
- She wanted to provide new metaphors for understanding G in ways meaningful today - the metaphor of G as Mother does not mean G is female, but that the image of ‘mother’ highlights certain characteristics of G (e.g. love for the world)
- Masculine lang. conveying G’s unilateral, sovereign rule, has led to the abuse of the natural world and domination of women by men
What is panentheism? How does this relate to McFaugue’s argument?
- The belief that the universe is a visible part of G
- If God is called ‘Mother’, the natural world is no longer ruled over by G, but it is the part of G’s womb ∴ to harm nature = to harm G
- Maternal images of G e.g. giving birth, nursing, comforting, caring - highlights our complete reliance on G
- We should not sentimentalise maternal imagery. We cannot assume that mothers are ‘naturally’ loving, comforting, or self-sacrificing, as these are social constructs
According to McFague, why should God be imagined in female, not feminine terms?
• “the first refers to gender while the second refers to qualities conventionally associated with women”
Why do many scholars reject McFague’s views as unbiblical?
- J asserted that G = “Father”; if he was wrong on this fundamental ‘fact’, how can we trust him on anything?
- G cannot be Jesus’ mother as Mary was
What does traditional Christian theology proclaim about God’s suffering?
• That he is impassible (English word to translate the Greek, ‘apatheia’ - ‘without suffering’)
- First meaning: ‘unable to suffer’
- Second meaning: ‘incapable of emotion of any kind’
• Asserts that G has no feelings analogous to human feelings + is closely related to his immutability ∴ nothing can change his inner emotional state
• While he displays a range of emotions (love, anger, grief), he consistently acts with compassion and mercy
• The ability to feel emotion through the incarnate Jesus does not affect the impassibility of his divine nature as it has always been his plan to overcome suffering with the res.
Why have several prominent theologians challenged the traditional view of God as impassible?
• Due to many genocides, C.tians cannot have faith in a G immune to suffering
What was the basic point that Jürgen Moltmann argued?
• That G suffers with humanity
What was the name of Moltmann’s book in which he discusses the nature of God in relation to suffering? What year was it published?
- ‘The Crucified God’
* 1972
What does Moltmann’s book attempt to answer?
• Jesus’ cry from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Eli Eli lama sabachthani)
What does Moltmann say happened in the cross of Christ?
• God experienced death
∴ the cross = of great importance, not just for humankind, but for G
What was Moltmann’s theology of the cross the reverse side of?
• His theology of hope
- C.tian hope = based on res. but cannot be a realistic/liberating hope “unless it apprehends the pain of the negative”
