I don’t know how much reading you have done recently with contemporary works of Theology and even some Biblical Studies. But what’s up with these Anglo Male 
Theologians using ‘she’ or ‘her’ all the time when they reference the third person in their writings? Doesn’t this seem patronizing? I know this is politically (and theologically) correct nowadays, given the feminization of society and the in-roads that egalitarianism has made in ubiquitous form; but this, at this point just seems disingenuous and even cheesy—if not superficial. If I was a female, and I read this all the time I would be offended. Let me lift an example of this from something I just read in a footnote, written by Andrew Chignell (I don’t know Andrew, have nothing against Andrew, and only use him as an example because he is the nearest at hand—the quote from him is him explaining something about ‘Analytic Philosophy’ and the justification of belief etc., I am intending to only illustrate my point with this quote):
[J]ustification comes in degrees, and I don’t mean to take a position here regarding how much justification an appeal to such sources could supply or defeat. It’s also worth pointing out that I’m speaking of claims, doctrines, and principles here, rather than beliefs. That’s because I do not want to presume that the propositions involved must be actual candidates for an analytic theologian’s belief in order for her effectively to work with them. We could say, of course, that special religious sources give the analytic theologian prima facie justification for the belief that p even though she herself . . . [Andrew Chignell, Analytic Theology, eds. Crisp & Rea, p. 118 fn. 2]
This is common practice, even some of you when you comment here use this convention in your comments. At a certain level doesn’t this seem like a game? If you’re a female theologian or philosopher, does this ever offend you? It almost has the affect for me, that Affirmative Action has; it seems to be an overcompensation for something that is perceived as a wrong of the past, and so now we will go overkill in trying to make amends for that wrong.
What do you all think about this; especially if you’re a female?
My post is not intending to question the fact that there are brilliant female theologians and philosophers and medical doctors etc.; instead, I am questioning the usage of her as a moniker that in the end really only continues to objectify the woman by “using” ‘her’ in a way that seems to provide cultural relief, or the elevation of an ideal; but it doesn’t really seem to reflect anything substantial, since in almost every case I’ve seen this convention used, it is used by a Anglo male writer. It just seems ironic.
Bobby, I am in complete agreement! It’s actually something I have noted to my friends; one simply can’t open a modern academic work without finding herself subjected to this… π
Hi Joel,
Funny π !
I have the same initial reaction when I hear God referred to as “she” out of the blue. I am not opposed to it, but it still feels awkward, as if it is being used only to be politically correct.
I am much more open, however, to using “she” regarding the Holy Spirit. Somewhere along the way I read that a connection could be made between the Holy Spirit and Sophia, Wisdom, who was traditionally identified as female. Since there is at least another reason beside political correctness, the use doesn’t feel as awkward.
Ken,
I really couldn’t disagree with you more! God in Christ is He, that is if God is triune in his economic action and Self-revelation. It’s at least interesting that when God enfleshed He did so as a Man instead of a Woman. And yet, God is spirit, and thus is supra-sexual, ontologically (thus “We” were made in His image, Male and Female). I think His Self-revelation, though, determines the Way we are to refer to Him.
I don’t think either “he” or “she” fully enunciates the nature of the Triune God. Is Jesus a man? Yes. But I have a hard time drawing the conclusion that God, therefore, is only a man. Jesus was also born just over 2000 years ago, yet that does not mean that God did not exist before then. Likewise, if Jesus had brown eyes, that doesn’t mean that God has brown eyes. When it comes to physical characteristics, I have a hard time applying them universally to the entire scope of the Divine revelation.
By no means do I discredit the male images of God–this is an issue I have with my seminary’s inclusive language policy, as it ends up trying to discard any male imagery. But, I do not believe that the male image for God can begin to adequately contain the whole of the Divine revelation, and so I try to be open to other ways of expressing that revelation.
All in all, it’s a pretty sticky situation, and I blame the English language for it.
My particular view of election and my theological prolegomena disagree with your idea about the ontology of God. I don’t see this as a semantic problem, but as an ontological issue. I don’t see “male imagery” as an annex to who God has elected himself to be in Christ; in other words along with Rahner, but more along with Barth and Thomas Torrance, I believe the economic ad extra nature of God is the ontological in se. I am not open to other ways of “expressing that revelation,” and that is for prior epistemological-theological commitments that I maintain.
But, in my comment, I did note that God, who is spirit, is supra-sexual as well.
This just goes to show the lengths a man will go for a date, and the falacy in the historical argument that the female human has been powerless over her physically stronger counterpart. He will say and do what he must to win her. If he must conquer nations and subjegate peoples to win her devotion, he will.
Duane,
There is an ideological shift afoot. As usual there are some positives and negatives associated with the shift; I am highlighting something that I simply find cheezy in this post.
Yes, well I went through this at a Lutheran conference about 15 years ago.
I quote your forthcoming book back to you:
“Athanasius was fond of saying that it is better to ‘signify God from the Son and call him Father, than to name God from his works alone and call him Unoriginate’.β
I understand that God created mankind in His own image, male and female created He them, so that the female is part of the image of God, none the less, His revelation is almost entirely Father – Son relationship, so that to call “Him” “Her” is to (in my opinion) presume too much, and (again, in my opinion) to pander to those who make idols of their co-dependencies.
Did not Paul break ranks and revolutionize the Jewish faith? Could he not have gone the rest of the way (if there was more ground to be broken) and been accepted by the gentile church (the Hebrews had already rejected him) to Call God “she” and proclaim that all love between any sex is blessed and any other revolutionary thing that may have been in God’s heart, if indeed it was God’s will? If the Lord and the Spirit of God are not behind it, then it is not revolution or reformation, but rebellion. But dare I say most of those are not rebels.
Isn’t the naming of God a very very serious detail?
Duane,
I’m not as concerned about this as you. My observation with this post was just noting how using “her” doesn’t really seem to accomplish what the users of this seek to be achieving—that is a turn to the feminine in theology or academics. I think there should be this turn, but I just think constantly using this convention can sometimes get cheesy π .