Our Father, who art in Heaven
· If God is the Father, then we are His children.
· Fathers cherish, guide, and discipline their children – but with a discipline that is meant to correct rather than punish.
· Is “Father” meant to be gendered? Or, does God combine both the masculine and feminine principles?
o Perhaps this prayer, offered to us by Jesus to help us to pray to the Father, is gendered. It feels more masculine than feminine to me.
o But, perhaps Jesus’ central message is where the feminine principle begins to meld with the masculinity of the Father. After all, Jesus preached the love of God and neighbor, to turn the other cheek, and to suffer the little children to come to him. There is more than a touch of the feminine principle in these teachings.
o And, the Holy Spirit could be understood as strongly feminine. The mystics of the church talk about union with God by becoming as one with the flame of the Spirit. The terminology of such mystical embraces is often one of a lover and the beloved.
· If God is in Heaven, and God – as the Holy Spirit – resides in our hearts, is Heaven best understood as a place that is “out there” or “up there,” or is it better understood as being where God exists – in our hearts?
o If so, then Heaven is not (merely) a state that we enter into when our mortal bodies die, but a living place that we connect with here. Now.
o Heaven is a real goal of contemplative prayer – of meditation and silent longing for God’s presence. It can be realized here. Now.
Hallowed be thy name
· In other words, You (God) are holy – pure – perfect
· We are not telling God that he is holy (He already knows). But, saying it helps to remind ourselves of that Truth. It helps to put us in the proper frame of mind for further prayer.
· We are reaching out toward that pure light.
o God’s holiness is the measure of all things. It is also the source of our humility (if observing the created universe wasn’t enough to do this itself).
· I find it curious that it is His name that is said to be holy. Why not say “Hallowed be thou?”
o Perhaps an answer lies in God’s answer to Moses when he asked His name: “I Am That I Am.”
o If that, YHWH, “I AM” is His name, then this line can really mean that it is not just a name that is holy, but the I AM who is holy
o Or, perhaps this is a reminder to not take His name in vain. To assume an attitude of proper reverence when calling upon it/Him.
Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done – On Earth as it is in Heaven
· As it is in Heaven. But, Heaven is in our own hearts. Here on Earth, already.
· God’s Will is to be present in our hearts – to have His Spirit animate and motivate us. When we recognize Him in our own hearts, Heaven exists in us.
· If His Will is to be the Heaven in our hearts, then His Will is to be present in the Earth. For that to happen, though, we must breathe His Spirit out into the world.
· I do not discount the possibility of miracles, but God’s actions on Earth are mainly through the acts of His children. Earthquakes and tsunamis might strike down thousands of people, but God’s love is demonstrated by those who are compelled to help ease the plight of the survivors.
· We cannot sit back and wait for God to perform miracles to build His Kingdom on Earth. We are His bricklayers and masons. If we do not build its walls, they will not be built.
Give us this day our daily bread
· Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.
· We pray for that which nourishes us.
o Bread, yes,
o But also the Word of God
o And the Word that is wordless – the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that sustains us in our spiritual lives.
§ Better that we should forgo bread and be filled with the Spirit
§ Than to be sated with food, yet be without the Spirit
And forgive us our trespasses – as we forgive those who trespass against us
· This is not two phrases, but one. It is a plea for mercy and forgiveness, but only insofar as we have ourselves been merciful and forgiving.
· We are all sinners – and when we are struck on the cheek, we are called to turn the other cheek rather than to strike back.
· We hope that God will be more forgiving of us than we are of others. We are human, after all, and that means we love to nurse our grudges. We sometimes even enjoy being angry, and we carry the wrongs done to us in a jeweled box – one of our most prized possessions. We truly do not want to let it go.
· But, while we hope that God will be more forgiving than we are ourselves, this line in the prayer reminds us to do the best we can in modeling God’s forgiveness. In this way, we are really praying for our own willingness to forgive.
· We are telling God that we want to give up our prized grudges, as we try to shape ourselves to His holy example.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil
· Are we really praying to be spared from temptation?
· What is sturdier, the caged bird that is protected from all danger, or the wild bird that struggles against the pressures of nature? Who has the stronger muscles, the lounger or the laborer? Spiritual muscles must be tested in order for them to grow stronger. It is in the heat of the hearth that steel is tempered and gains strength.
· Jesus Himself was tested by Satan in the wilderness. So, to be tempted is not to be unholy. Holiness is shown by resisting temptation.
· What we are really asking for here is to not be tempted beyond our present strength to resist. When helping an addict to recover, we do not place the syringe or a drink in front of him.
· We are asking for strength and courage to develop our powers of resistance so we can eventually withstand the storm.
For thine is the Kingdom, and the Power and the Glory forever and ever
· Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name
· The Kingdom is God’s, we are in the Kingdom, we are the Kingdom. We are His.
· For the power and glory are God’s. We participate in that when we are being according to His Will. But, we are the children – and God is the source.
Amen
· So be it
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Monday, March 27, 2006
Is God Male?
Is God a man or a woman? When put this way, the question seems absurd. It is silly to think of God as a man or a woman, since such concepts are limited, and God is not. Yet, isn’t that what we do all the time? Don’t we tend to think of “Him” in that way? Isn’t He, after all, the old man in the cloud, reaching out His finger to touch Michelangelo’s Adam to give him life? Isn’t He the angry God of justice and holiness who destroyed the Earth in a flood, sparing only Noah and his family? Isn’t He the God who sent his angels to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? Isn’t He the God who chastised the Israelites by sending them into bondage more than once because of their loss of faith and attention? And isn’t He the God who Jesus called “Father” – a male term?
On the other hand, isn’t “He” the God who, out of love and compassion, sent his son, Jesus, to redeem a sinful world? For Trinitarians, isn’t He the God who showed so much compassion and grace that He went willingly to the cross on that mission of redemption? And isn’t He the God who desires to have an intimate, familiar relationship with us where we are nurtured, learn and grow? Isn’t He the wise teacher who patiently leads us down paths beside still waters? Isn’t He the God who welcomes the lamb back into the fold when it strays?
It has been suggested by theologians that God is neither male nor female, nor masculine or feminine – as God transcends these categories. After all, God is infinite and incomprehensible, so how could any category like “male” or “masculine” do justice to such as Him? If male only includes half of any species, how could God be adequately described by such a term? God is whole, complete and undivided – even as we experience Him in three persons. Jesus, when asked by a scribe which commandment is the greatest, replies “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one” (NSRV Mark, 12:21)
In the first creation story of the book of Genesis, God says, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness…So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (1:26-27). Notice that God refers to Himself in first person, plural. One way to understand this would be as a foreshadowing of the Trinity, but another would be a parallel to the male and female that He had created. He created “them; male and female,” “in his image,” “according to our likeness.” This could provide the basis for a different reading than normal, where God Himself is male and female, as is humankind, fashioned in His image.
The second creation story differs from the first. In this account, “the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being” (2:7). Later, God said, “it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner” (2:18). God then created the other animals, but this companionship was not enough, so He “caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (2: 21-23). As interesting as it is that we have two separate, and different, creation stories within the first few pages of the first book of the Bible, it is the nature of God that it highlights that I find most illuminating for our present subject. While this selection is often cited to show the inferior position of the woman (a helper, created after and from Adam), I think a different (and better) reading shows just the opposite. God made Adam in His own image, and the woman later created from his rib was an integral part of that image. To become one flesh, man leaves his home, and then clings to his wife – his “partner.” Man, alone, is partial, just as woman, alone, is partial. God, on the other hand, is integral, from whose image is man and woman, masculine and feminine together. (This does not, by the way, speak to the question of gay or lesbian relationships; but more on that in another column.) Thus, God is neither man nor woman, masculine nor feminine, but the whole from which both were derived.
On this reading, God is sovereign, pure, abstract, distant, just and powerful. At the same time, He(She) is diverse, real, close, compassionate and caring. We should be careful not to talk about God as if He(She) were confined to only one gender. (Norvene Vest uses the spelling Godde instead of God to refer to that complexity.) To do so would be idolatry – the confining of God within a bounded image – regardless of the fact that the image is mental rather than one made of stone, brass or gold. God is He, and God is She – and more. God is Masculine, and God is Feminine – and more. Neither aspect is over the other, but instead, both are parts of God’s image and nature. In the English language, we suffer from the lack of an ungendered personal pronoun. That’s too bad, because God is not (just) a He, nor (just) a She. And, because God is a person (as in the Trinity of the union of three Persons), God is not an It. God transcends these categories. As we talk of (and to) God, let us strive to keep this in mind
On the other hand, isn’t “He” the God who, out of love and compassion, sent his son, Jesus, to redeem a sinful world? For Trinitarians, isn’t He the God who showed so much compassion and grace that He went willingly to the cross on that mission of redemption? And isn’t He the God who desires to have an intimate, familiar relationship with us where we are nurtured, learn and grow? Isn’t He the wise teacher who patiently leads us down paths beside still waters? Isn’t He the God who welcomes the lamb back into the fold when it strays?
It has been suggested by theologians that God is neither male nor female, nor masculine or feminine – as God transcends these categories. After all, God is infinite and incomprehensible, so how could any category like “male” or “masculine” do justice to such as Him? If male only includes half of any species, how could God be adequately described by such a term? God is whole, complete and undivided – even as we experience Him in three persons. Jesus, when asked by a scribe which commandment is the greatest, replies “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one” (NSRV Mark, 12:21)
In the first creation story of the book of Genesis, God says, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness…So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (1:26-27). Notice that God refers to Himself in first person, plural. One way to understand this would be as a foreshadowing of the Trinity, but another would be a parallel to the male and female that He had created. He created “them; male and female,” “in his image,” “according to our likeness.” This could provide the basis for a different reading than normal, where God Himself is male and female, as is humankind, fashioned in His image.
The second creation story differs from the first. In this account, “the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being” (2:7). Later, God said, “it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner” (2:18). God then created the other animals, but this companionship was not enough, so He “caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (2: 21-23). As interesting as it is that we have two separate, and different, creation stories within the first few pages of the first book of the Bible, it is the nature of God that it highlights that I find most illuminating for our present subject. While this selection is often cited to show the inferior position of the woman (a helper, created after and from Adam), I think a different (and better) reading shows just the opposite. God made Adam in His own image, and the woman later created from his rib was an integral part of that image. To become one flesh, man leaves his home, and then clings to his wife – his “partner.” Man, alone, is partial, just as woman, alone, is partial. God, on the other hand, is integral, from whose image is man and woman, masculine and feminine together. (This does not, by the way, speak to the question of gay or lesbian relationships; but more on that in another column.) Thus, God is neither man nor woman, masculine nor feminine, but the whole from which both were derived.
On this reading, God is sovereign, pure, abstract, distant, just and powerful. At the same time, He(She) is diverse, real, close, compassionate and caring. We should be careful not to talk about God as if He(She) were confined to only one gender. (Norvene Vest uses the spelling Godde instead of God to refer to that complexity.) To do so would be idolatry – the confining of God within a bounded image – regardless of the fact that the image is mental rather than one made of stone, brass or gold. God is He, and God is She – and more. God is Masculine, and God is Feminine – and more. Neither aspect is over the other, but instead, both are parts of God’s image and nature. In the English language, we suffer from the lack of an ungendered personal pronoun. That’s too bad, because God is not (just) a He, nor (just) a She. And, because God is a person (as in the Trinity of the union of three Persons), God is not an It. God transcends these categories. As we talk of (and to) God, let us strive to keep this in mind
Monday, June 27, 2005
Government Support of Gay Pride
According to the New York Times, the Hillsborough County (Florida) Commission "approved by a vote of 5-1, with one abstention, a policy that directs the county government to 'abstain from ackowledging, promoting or participating' in gay pride recognition or events" (6-26-05, p. 1.17). Further, "the commission also voted to require a supermajority vote of 5 to 2 to overturn the policy" (p. 1.17).
I think it is unfortunate that the commission decided to make such a blanket policy. First, it singles out a group of legitimate citizens and says, in effect, that government shall not take heed of them. Will a public administrator be in violation of this policy if he or she allows gay groups, as gay groups, to participate in public hearings or other forms of participatory democracy? After all, doing so would be an acknowledgement or recognition of gay citizens - a source of pride.
Second, it deals with the issue with a one-size-fits-all brush. Rather than deal with the question on a case-by-case basis, the commission is saying that gay pride is itself something that government in Hillsborough county must not associate with.
Third, it begs the question of the First Amendment rights of gay pride groups. Since the county cannot refuse to grant parade permits based on the content of the speech being espoused by the marchers, but can only make content-neutral limitations on their access to the same rights that other groups (like the Daughters of the American Revolution) are granted, it is unclear what the real effect of the new p0licy will be. If the county grants permits for a gay-pride event based on a content-neutral determination, then will they then be in violation of their own policy? If they refuse to grant such a permit, are they then not in violation of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court?
Fourth, as a county policy, it is unclear to me what the effect would be on municipalities within the county. Will cities also be required to follow this rule, or can only the state impose such rules on them?
Perhaps the biggest problem, though, is the supermajority requirement, which is inherently anti-democratic in nature. It appears that, if you can control a majority of the commission at any given time, you can vote for supermajority requirements that will make it difficult, if not impossible, for future commissions to make changes or repeal those policies. The only way to truly be able to do this with a shred of democratic spirit would be to make changes to the charter of the county - and that cannot be done, democratically, without a public referendum.
I think it is unfortunate that the commission decided to make such a blanket policy. First, it singles out a group of legitimate citizens and says, in effect, that government shall not take heed of them. Will a public administrator be in violation of this policy if he or she allows gay groups, as gay groups, to participate in public hearings or other forms of participatory democracy? After all, doing so would be an acknowledgement or recognition of gay citizens - a source of pride.
Second, it deals with the issue with a one-size-fits-all brush. Rather than deal with the question on a case-by-case basis, the commission is saying that gay pride is itself something that government in Hillsborough county must not associate with.
Third, it begs the question of the First Amendment rights of gay pride groups. Since the county cannot refuse to grant parade permits based on the content of the speech being espoused by the marchers, but can only make content-neutral limitations on their access to the same rights that other groups (like the Daughters of the American Revolution) are granted, it is unclear what the real effect of the new p0licy will be. If the county grants permits for a gay-pride event based on a content-neutral determination, then will they then be in violation of their own policy? If they refuse to grant such a permit, are they then not in violation of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court?
Fourth, as a county policy, it is unclear to me what the effect would be on municipalities within the county. Will cities also be required to follow this rule, or can only the state impose such rules on them?
Perhaps the biggest problem, though, is the supermajority requirement, which is inherently anti-democratic in nature. It appears that, if you can control a majority of the commission at any given time, you can vote for supermajority requirements that will make it difficult, if not impossible, for future commissions to make changes or repeal those policies. The only way to truly be able to do this with a shred of democratic spirit would be to make changes to the charter of the county - and that cannot be done, democratically, without a public referendum.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Culture of Life, Culture of Death
I often hear from those persons who describe themselves as supporters of a "culture of life" - that anyone who doesn't support the policies that they associate with that culture is thereby in favor of a "culture of death." Yet, does such a dichotomy make sense? Is there no other option besides these two, that one is either in favor of one or the other? Or, would it be better to say that the question is set up to be misleading and is therefore not a reasonable question in the first place?
I support the latter position. First, there is more to the question than life and death. There is also the question of types or qualities of life (relating to questions of assisted suicide), questions of when human life truly begins to exist in a meaningful way (relating to questions of abortion and stem cell research), and questions of due process (relating to questions of the death penalty. There are also questions of when it is right or even obligatory to kill (as in "just war" theory), and whether it is at all ethical to profit from someone's life or death (think of the insurance and mortuary industries, IVF clinics who create many more embryoes than they are likely to use, and companies that engage in stem cell research with the hope of future profit.
I want to pursue these questions in future postings, but will content myself for the moment by suggesting that it is very difficult to fashion a completely consistent "culture of life" argument that ties all these areas together. The Roman Catholic Church makes a pretty good effort at consistency here, but many members of the so-called religious right do a lousy job of it. They seem to argue that there is a religious basis for going to war even when the reasons for doing so are short of the standard of "imminent danger." They also argue that capital punishment is acceptable to Christianity (or even obligatory in the sense of the state protecting a "godly" people). Yet, in both cases, they are supporting policy of death over one of life, mercy or prudence. To be fair, they would argue that there is a difference between a helpless "unborn child" and a convicted murderer. However, this introduces the idea that there are some extraneous factors to the life-death question that can make death an acceptable alternative.
In the end, all they are really doing is choosing which factors they prefer while denying others the same privilege. By collapsing all of this into a culture of life vs. culture of death dichotomy, they oversimplify the question by denying the existence of such factors while implicitly taking advantage of them.
I'm not sure whether this is a matter of unclear thinking, or of simple (?) hypocrisy.
I support the latter position. First, there is more to the question than life and death. There is also the question of types or qualities of life (relating to questions of assisted suicide), questions of when human life truly begins to exist in a meaningful way (relating to questions of abortion and stem cell research), and questions of due process (relating to questions of the death penalty. There are also questions of when it is right or even obligatory to kill (as in "just war" theory), and whether it is at all ethical to profit from someone's life or death (think of the insurance and mortuary industries, IVF clinics who create many more embryoes than they are likely to use, and companies that engage in stem cell research with the hope of future profit.
I want to pursue these questions in future postings, but will content myself for the moment by suggesting that it is very difficult to fashion a completely consistent "culture of life" argument that ties all these areas together. The Roman Catholic Church makes a pretty good effort at consistency here, but many members of the so-called religious right do a lousy job of it. They seem to argue that there is a religious basis for going to war even when the reasons for doing so are short of the standard of "imminent danger." They also argue that capital punishment is acceptable to Christianity (or even obligatory in the sense of the state protecting a "godly" people). Yet, in both cases, they are supporting policy of death over one of life, mercy or prudence. To be fair, they would argue that there is a difference between a helpless "unborn child" and a convicted murderer. However, this introduces the idea that there are some extraneous factors to the life-death question that can make death an acceptable alternative.
In the end, all they are really doing is choosing which factors they prefer while denying others the same privilege. By collapsing all of this into a culture of life vs. culture of death dichotomy, they oversimplify the question by denying the existence of such factors while implicitly taking advantage of them.
I'm not sure whether this is a matter of unclear thinking, or of simple (?) hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)